mcp-server

create_feed

Create a Koongo product feed for a project. feed_code MUST be one returned by list_feed_templates. Returns {feedId, feedCode, status, customerId, editUrl, categoryMappingNeeded}. project_id is OPTIONAL: omit it when the customer has a single project (it is inferred); if they have several you get project_id_required — call list_projects and pass one. If categoryMappingNeeded is true, map its categories with list_unmapped_categories + search_target_categories + set_category_mapping (pass the returned feedId as feed_id). The core next step is to MAP output attributes: call get_feed + list_source_attributes, then map_feed_attribute per attribute (category mapping only covers categories, not attributes). Requires the project's data imported (dataStatus='ok', see get_import_status). If the plan's channels limit is reached, the call is refused with error 'quota_reached' (HTTP 403) + addonCode + upsellUrl — show the upsellUrl and do not retry (see PLANS, ADDONS & UPGRADES).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feed_code`	Yes
`project_id`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations providing no behavioral hints, the description fully discloses behavior: return fields, optional vs required behavior, downstream mapping requirements, data import prerequisite, and the quota_reached error with upsellUrl. This is far beyond what structured annotations provide and gives the agent everything needed to understand side effects and follow-ups.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into prerequisites, optional behavior, and error handling. It is longer than average but nearly every sentence earns its place; a slightly tighter structure could improve scannability.

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?

For a creation tool with no output schema and only two parameters, this description is exceptionally complete: it names return fields, explains category mapping, attribute mapping, import prerequisites, and quota errors with next steps. An agent can invoke this tool and handle the subsequent workflow without needing additional tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: feed_code is constrained to values from list_feed_templates, and project_id is explained as optional with inference rules and the project_id_required error case. Every parameter's semantics are meaningfully described beyond the bare schema.

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 Koongo product feed for a project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_ad, create_marketplace, and create_rule, and the rest of the description reinforces that this tool specifically deals with product feeds.

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 strong usage guidance: feed_code must come from list_feed_templates, project_id handling is explained based on customer project count, and it covers prerequisites and error handling. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with update_feed or state when to prefer one over the other.

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?