mcp-server

create_ad

Create a new ad for a project from one of the channels in list_ad_channels. Ads are ads-based channels (advertising / price-comparison / classifieds), not marketplaces: they publish products to the ad platform and have no order sync. channel_code is the channelCode from list_ad_channels. Returns {integrationId, action:'create', status, kind:'ads', editUrl, nextStepType, message}. status is 'created' (the ad exists; continue with configure_ad_step starting at nextStepType) or 'prerequisite_not_met' (HTTP 409 — message explains what must be done first, e.g. an offer/primary feed must exist first, or you are over your plan's ads limit (the message carries the upgrade link — see PLANS, ADDONS & UPGRADES); nextStepType names the step). multichannel_code links a multichannel definition when the channel offers one. definition_code picks a SPECIFIC definition of the channel when it has more than one — take it from get_ad_channel definitions[].definitionCode; omit it for the channel's default/primary definition. name is an OPTIONAL human-readable label so you can later find this ad by name (names are not unique — set_ad_name can change it later). project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer; if project_id_required is returned, call list_projects and pass project_id). The returned integrationId is the ad_id for get_ad / configure_ad_step and other ads tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Optional human-readable name for the new ad.
`project_id`	No
`channel_code`	Yes	channelCode of the ad channel (from list_ad_channels).
`definition_code`	No	Pick a specific definition (definitionCode from get_ad_channel) when the channel has more than one; omit for the default/primary definition.
`multichannel_code`	No	Definition code of a multichannel option when the channel offers one.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses the return shape, including integrationId, action, status, kind, editUrl, nextStepType, and message. It also explains the 'created' vs 'prerequisite_not_met' statuses, the HTTP 409 case, and that the returned integrationId is the ad_id used by get_ad and configure_ad_step.

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?

The description is long but well organized, moving from channel eligibility to response semantics to each parameter in schema order. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though a few asides like the upgrade-link reference add marginal value and prevent it from being maximally concise.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the lack of an output schema and the five-parameter surface, the description is operationally complete. It covers return fields, status handling, prerequisite failures, the project_id inference edge case, and the relationship between the returned integrationId and subsequent ad tooling.

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?

Although the schema already covers 80% of parameters, the description adds essential meaning: how channel_code is obtained, when definition_code must be omitted, what multichannel_code links, name non-uniqueness, and the project_id fallback via list_projects. It specifically compensates for project_id having no schema description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new ad for a project from one of the channels in list_ad_channels.' It further distinguishes ads from marketplaces by saying they 'publish products to the ad platform and have no order sync,' so an agent can separate this from marketplace creation tools.

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 gives clear context for sourcing channel_code from list_ad_channels and explicitly rules out marketplaces by contrast, including the no-order-sync distinction. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like create_marketplace, but the behavioral boundary makes the intended usage clear enough.

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

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?