Skip to main content
Glama

get_ad_item

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get ONE ad listing item with the product's source values and what Koongo last exported for the channel. Use this to check a price or stock complaint for one product: compare the store's values with the exported ones. Returns {itemId, koongoProductId, parentId, productType, status, statusDescription, channelStatus, channelStatusLabel, listingId, listingUrl, itemLocked, lockedReason, source:{sku, name, priceFinalInclTax, priceFinalExclTax, priceOriginalInclTax, priceOriginalExclTax, qty, stockStatus, sourceUpdatedAt, koongoUpdatedAt, deleted}, lastExport:{state, exportedAt, submittedAt, submissionStatus, values:[{code, label, value}], diff:[{code, label, previous, current}], channelValues}, sensitiveGate}. source is null when the product is no longer in the store data. lastExport.state: sent = the exported change was processed, pending = it waits to be sent, failed = the channel refused the last submission, not_exported = nothing exported yet. values are the exported channel attributes (codes differ per channel); diff is what changed in the last export; submittedAt and channelValues exist only for channels that record them. SENSITIVE-GATE: the first call (acknowledge_sensitive absent/false) withholds every product value and returns {sensitiveGate:{confirmationRequired:true, itemCount, fields, kind}} — present that gate to the USER, get their approval, then re-call with acknowledge_sensitive:true. Find item_id with list_ad_items (fulltext = SKU, name, EAN or listing id); ad_id is the integrationId from list_ads. For why the item fails use get_ad_item_report. project_id is OPTIONAL (project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

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>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ad_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ad_idYesintegrationId of the ad (from list_ads).
item_idYesThe listing itemId (from list_ad_items).
project_idNo
acknowledge_sensitiveNoSet true only AFTER the user approves seeing the product's real values; absent/false returns a sensitiveGate instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds substantial behavior on top: the sensitive-gate withholding on the first call, source being null when the product left the store data, the four lastExport.state meanings, and the conditional presence of submittedAt and channelValues. It does not discuss pagination or response size limits, but for a single-item read those are minor.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and use case before the return-shape detail, which is defensible since no output schema exists. It is still long, with a long inline field enumeration, and it repeats what the schema already says about where ad_id and item_id come from.

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?

Very thorough for a four-parameter read tool with no output schema: return fields, null semantics, state meanings and the sensitive-gate protocol are all covered. The remaining gap is that the gate's fields, itemCount and kind are only listed by name without explanation, leaving the agent to interpret what it must show the user.

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 75%, and the description explains the origin of the two required IDs (integrationId from list_ads, itemId from list_ad_items) and the optional project_id with its project_id_required fallback. acknowledge_sensitive is explained as an approval-after-user-consent flag, which the schema only states more tersely. Some of this duplicates schema text on ad_id.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get ONE ad listing item" with the product's source values and last export for the channel. The emphasized "ONE" plus the named comparison use case separates it cleanly from the sibling list_ad_items (bulk listing) and get_ad_item_report (failure diagnosis).

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use scenario (a single price or stock complaint) and routes to alternatives by name: list_ad_items to find item_id, list_ads for the integrationId, get_ad_item_report for failure reasons, list_projects when project_id_required is raised. It also spells out the required two-step procedure with the user for the sensitive gate.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources