mcp-server

get_ad_attributes

Read-only

List an ad's OUTPUT attributes and how each is currently sourced — the tool for SOLVING THE ATTRIBUTE FORM (the discipline users struggle with). Returns {integrationId, attributes:[{code, label, required, hidden, valueSource, platformCode, constant, composedValue, defaultPlatformCode, defaultConstant, allowedValues, formatType, ruleId, ruleName, ruleEnabled, priceAttribute, currency, currencyConversionEnabled}], requiredCount, requiredUnmappedCount, unresolvedCodes}. valueSource is rule|composed|attribute|constant|unmapped (the effective source; a rule attached but ruleEnabled=false does NOT count and the attribute reads 'unmapped'). priceAttribute=true marks a money attribute (formatType price / price_with_delete); currency is its target currency and currencyConversionEnabled whether Koongo converts the value into it (null = not a price attribute). Conversion only matters when the price is in a DIFFERENT currency than the store; if the attribute's name already names a currency (e.g. its label/code contains "EUR") the value is ALREADY in that currency, so set currencyConversionEnabled=false to avoid converting it twice. requiredUnmappedCount is the running count of REQUIRED attributes with no working source — 0 means the form is solved and the ad can build/export; unresolvedCodes lists exactly which ones to fix. Pass only_unresolved:true to get just those rows. To fill one, match the user's attribute label to its code, then map_ad_attribute. ad_id is from list_ads. project_id is OPTIONAL (project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ad_id`	Yes
`project_id`	No
`only_unresolved`	No	Return only REQUIRED attributes that still have no working value source.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: valueSource semantics ignore disabled rules, priceAttribute and currencyConversionEnabled carry a double-conversion caveat, and requiredUnmappedCount/unresolvedCodes define the solved/export condition. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded, and the long middle section packs dense, non-redundant semantics around valueSource, currency conversion, and unresolved counts. It is longer than strictly necessary because the return shape is inlined in prose, but every sentence carries operational meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the full return shape, field-level semantics, edge cases, and next-step guidance. The tool is complex (rules, currency, required counts), and the description covers all of it well enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 33%, so the description carries the load: it sources ad_id from list_ads, clarifies project_id's optionality and the fallback to list_projects, and explains only_unresolved's behavior in terms of REQUIRED attributes with no working source. All three parameters receive meaningful guidance beyond the 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?

States a specific action ('List an ad's OUTPUT attributes and how each is currently sourced') and immediately names its niche ('SOLVING THE ATTRIBUTE FORM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like map_ad_attribute and list_ads. The description leaves no doubt about what resource the tool operates on.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool's use case, names the follow-up action (map_ad_attribute), and gives concrete routing conditions: ad_id comes from list_ads, project_id is optional unless project_id_required is set (then call list_projects), and only_unresolved:true filters output. This is strong when-to-use and when-to-alternative guidance.

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?