Growomat

Upload offline conversion

upload_offline_conversion

Upload one or more offline conversions (e.g. a Callomat booked call) to the ad platform, closing the click-id attribution loop so the platform can credit the originating ad click. Pass body as a single conversion or { conversions: [ { gclid | msclkid, conversionAction (the conversion-action name, e.g. "Callomat Booked Call"), occurredAt (ISO 8601), value?, currency?, orderId? } ] }. A gclid routes to Google Ads, an msclkid to Microsoft Advertising. Idempotent on orderId — re-uploading the same orderId is a no-op. Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for this one call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Conversion payload — a single conversion object or { conversions: [...] }.
`space_id`	No	Override the active Space for this one call.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

ReadOnlyHint=false already indicates a mutation, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: idempotency on orderId, routing based on gclid/msclkid, and scoping to active Space. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds essential information (payload format, routing, idempotency, scoping) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers input format, routing, idempotency, and scoping comprehensively. However, it omits any mention of return values or error conditions, which might be useful since there is no output schema. Still, it is complete enough for a competent agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description significantly enriches the parameter meaning by detailing the body structure: single conversion vs { conversions: [...] }, field names, optional markers, example values, and routing logic (gclid for Google, msclkid for Microsoft). This is far more than what the schema expresses.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Upload one or more offline conversions... to the ad platform, closing the click-id attribution loop.' It specifies the resource (offline conversions), the action (upload), and the context (credit the originating ad click). This distinguishes it from siblings like upload_conversion_adjustment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for use (offline conversions, e.g., a Callomat booked call) and includes a pointer for scoping: 'Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like upload_conversion_adjustment, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Growomat tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (get_ad, update_ad, delete_ad), so entity-level tools are easy to distinguish. The main ambiguity is among reporting/status tools like get_conversion_status, get_conversion_health, get_conversion_report, and account_summary vs. get_performance_stats, which could tempt misselection without reading descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Naming is highly consistent: nearly every resource has create_/get_/update_/delete_/list_ variants, with predictable special verbs like set_, trigger_, preview_, and upload_. Minor exceptions like account_summary or get_angle_readout still follow the same readable verb-driven style.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even one covering ad management. Most entities have full CRUD plus many custom readouts and report variants, which creates context bloat and makes tool selection unnecessarily expensive for the agent.

Completeness4/5

The platform covers the full campaign lifecycle: campaigns, ad groups, ads, keywords, assets, business/creative planes, conversion actions, sync, budget, and targeting are all represented. Minor gaps exist—conversion sources have create/list but no get/update/delete, and there is no explicit way to update or remove a conversion source—but these can be worked around.

Resources

Need Help?