mcp-server

clean_resubmit_ad_items

Destructive

AD items: clean + resubmit — clear the chosen items' channel listing and submit them again to the LIVE ad channel. Use this when specific listings are stuck or rejected. Needs confirm:true after the user agrees. Target item_ids or all_items:true.

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": {
      "ad_id": "<ad_id>"
    },
    "name": "clean_resubmit_ad_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ad_id`	Yes	integrationId of the ad (from list_ads).
`confirm`	No	true only after the user approved; without it the call returns confirm_required and nothing runs.
`item_ids`	No	itemId values (from list_ad_items) to act on. Use this OR all_items.
`all_items`	No	Apply to every item of the ad. Use this OR item_ids.
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: exactly what is destroyed (the channel listing is cleared), the target channel (LIVE), and the confirmation protocol including the confirm_required no-op response. It does not cover post-resubmission state or timing, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, trigger, safety gate, target selection, in that order. The telegraphic 'AD items: clean + resubmit' opener is dense but informative rather than redundant.

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?

For a 5-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, confirmation gating and target selection, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. Gaps remain on what happens to items after resubmission and on project_id, and the sibling-overlap ambiguity is unaddressed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not encode: item_ids and all_items are alternatives ('Target item_ids or all_items:true'), which matters for a destructive call. It also restates and reinforces the confirm:true gate semantics. Only project_id is left undocumented in both places.

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 composite operation: clearing the chosen items' channel listing and submitting them again to the LIVE ad channel. That distinguishes it in substance from clean_ad_items and submit_ad_items, but it never names those siblings, nor does it explain how it differs from clean_resubmit_all_ad_items when all_items:true is used.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives one positive trigger ('when specific listings are stuck or rejected') but no when-not guidance and no named alternatives, even though clean_ad_items, submit_ad_items and clean_resubmit_all_ad_items are obvious candidates an agent would need to weigh. The all_items vs clean_resubmit_all_ad_items overlap is left unresolved.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

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

Need Help?