mcp-server

force_insert_ad_items

Destructive

AD items: force insert — force a fresh insert of the chosen items on the LIVE ad channel. Use this when the user asks to insert specific listings anew. 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": "force_insert_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, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is partly covered; the description still adds real value by stressing that the insert happens on the LIVE channel and by spelling out the two-step approval gate. It leaves a gap on consequences — whether existing live listings are replaced, duplicated, or unaffected, and whether the operation can be undone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and operation, with the targeting rule last. The 'AD items: force insert' opening partially duplicates the title rather than adding information, but there is no filler text.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time decisions: when to use, the user-approval gate, and how to target items. It falls short only on downstream effects and on routing versus the submit/clean_resubmit family of siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains ad_id, confirm, item_ids, and all_items. The description restates the item_ids/all_items either-or choice and the confirm gate but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, and the undocumented project_id parameter is not addressed at all.

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+resource combination ('force insert' on 'AD items') and scopes it to the LIVE ad channel, which an agent can read as distinct from list/get operations. It does not name how it differs from near-siblings such as submit_ad_items, submit_all_ad_items, or clean_resubmit_ad_items, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('Use this when the user asks to insert specific listings anew') plus a procedural prerequisite: confirm:true only after the user agrees. It also states the targeting choice (item_ids OR all_items:true). What is missing is an exclusion or alternative clause naming a sibling tool for the non-forced case.

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?