Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

X Ads MCP by InsightfulPipe

by com.insightfulpipe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

X Ads Execute Action

execute_action
Destructive

Execute X Ads action (Step 3 (FINAL) of workflow).

REQUIRED: Complete these steps first using query_contexts:

  1. request='accounts' - Get workspace_id, brand_id, account_id AND available_actions

  2. request='actions_details' with actions=['xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx'] - Get detailed body structure for specific action(s) using actions from available_actions

IMPORTANT: Always call step 2 to see the exact body structure before executing.

Rely on info from steps 1-2 to construct the action body. Follow the schema exactly.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "execute_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured fields. The description adds real value beyond that with the mandatory workflow ordering and a warning to follow the schema exactly for a free-form body, but it says nothing about consequences of execution — irreversibility, whether a confirmation step exists, or failure behavior — which matters most for a destructive tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the workflow position and then the REQUIRED steps before any other prose, which is the right ordering for a gated tool. It loses a point for redundancy — 'Always call step 2' and 'Rely on info from steps 1-2' restate the numbered list already given.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the precondition path for constructing the free-form body. The remaining gap is behavioral rather than structural: no mention of what happens on an invalid body or an irreversible action, which would be expected for a destructive, open-world call.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single 'body' parameter is a fully free-form object (additionalProperties: true) with 0% schema coverage, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by directing the agent to fetch the exact body structure via query_contexts actions_details and to 'Follow the schema exactly', but it never describes a single body field itself, leaving all semantic content to a separate call.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (X Ads action) and positions itself as 'Step 3 (FINAL) of workflow', which distinguishes it from the discovery siblings. The weakness is that 'action' is an opaque, dynamically-defined resource — the description never says what kinds of actions exist, so the agent still can't tell what this actually does without going to query_contexts.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit, numbered preconditions and even names the exact request values ('accounts', 'actions_details' with actions list) needed before calling. It shows the alternative tool (query_contexts) and the condition that routes an agent there, which is the strongest form of when-to-use guidance.

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

All X Ads MCP by InsightfulPipe toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources