mcp-server

get_value_mapping_inputs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the inputs needed to build a value-mapping rule (Attribute Rule) that remaps a source attribute's values onto a target attribute's allowed set (e.g. store colours → the channel's accepted colour list). Use this to collect the inputs of a value-mapping rule before building it. Works for BOTH a feed and a marketplace/ad. This is for value→value MAPPING (the map_attribute_value operation); to just assign ONE fixed value from an attribute's option list (a "Set option") use get_attribute_options instead. Returns {sourceValues:[{value, label}], targetAllowedValues:[{value, label}], alreadyMapped:[{search, replace}], hasMore, nextOffset}. sourceValues are the distinct values of source_attribute_code in the store; targetAllowedValues are the values target_attribute_code accepts on the target; alreadyMapped are the pairs already configured. YOU propose the search→replace pairs from these two lists — this tool runs no AI and never writes. Apply the pairs by adding a map_attribute_value operation (arguments search/replace) to the rule via create_rule / update_rule, then attach the rule (map_feed_attribute / map_marketplace_attribute / map_ad_attribute with rule_id); values you leave unmapped pass through unchanged for the user to finish manually. search/replace on the map_attribute_value op you build from these are arrays of {value:''} objects paired by index (NOT plain strings). Pass only_unmapped:true to get only source values that still need a pair; page with offset (from nextOffset) while hasMore is true. TARGET: pass EXACTLY ONE of feed_id (a feed, from list_feeds) or integration_id (a marketplace/ad — the marketplace_id/ad_id from list_marketplaces / list_ads); integration_id resolves the integration's attributes. The attribute codes come from get_feed / get_marketplace_attributes / get_ad_attributes / list_source_attributes. project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer; project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects). This tool returns real store data values only after you set acknowledge_sensitive:true. The first call (flag absent/false) returns {sensitiveGate:{confirmationRequired:true, itemCount, fields, kind}} with the sourceValues / alreadyMapped arrays EMPTY — present that gate to the USER, get their approval, then re-call with acknowledge_sensitive:true to receive the actual values.

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": {
      "source_attribute_code": "<source_attribute_code>",
      "target_attribute_code": "<target_attribute_code>"
    },
    "name": "get_value_mapping_inputs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`offset`	No	Pagination cursor: pass the previous response's nextOffset to fetch the next page (default 0).
`feed_id`	No	Target a feed (from list_feeds). Pass exactly one of feed_id or integration_id.
`project_id`	No
`only_unmapped`	No	When true, return only source values that still need a search→replace pair (skip already-mapped ones); default false.
`integration_id`	No	Target a marketplace/ad — the marketplace_id or ad_id from list_marketplaces / list_ads. Pass exactly one of feed_id or integration_id.
`acknowledge_sensitive`	No	Set true only AFTER the user approves seeing real data. When absent/false the tool returns a sensitiveGate with sourceValues / alreadyMapped empty; with true it returns the actual values.
`source_attribute_code`	Yes
`target_attribute_code`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely pre-declared. The description then adds genuine context beyond the annotations: no AI runs, nothing is written, unmapped values pass through unchanged, and the two-call sensitive gate returns empty sourceValues/alreadyMapped until acknowledge_sensitive:true. However, it never explains the sensitiveGate response shape in detail beyond naming its fields, and pagination behaviour is only implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the alternative are front-loaded, which is good. But the whole body is a single dense block mixing return shape, workflow, argument-format warnings, target selection, project scoping and the sensitive gate; it would scan far better as short labelled sections, and some of the format detail about search/replace arrays belongs closer to the operation it describes.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only discovery tool this is close to self-sufficient: it describes the returned fields, the sensitive-gate two-call sequence, pagination, target selection and the follow-up calls needed to apply the mapping. The main gap is that the shape of the sensitiveGate object and the error/conflict case (neither or both of feed_id/integration_id) are implied rather than stated.

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 63%, so the description must compensate — and it does. It explains that feed_id comes from list_feeds while integration_id is a marketplace_id/ad_id from list_marketplaces/list_ads and resolves that integration's attributes, that exactly one must be passed, that project_id is optional and inferred for single-project customers, that only_unmapped filters out already-paired source values, and that offset should be fed from nextOffset while hasMore is true.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the inputs needed to build a value-mapping rule') and pins the scope with a concrete example (store colours → channel's accepted colour list). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_attribute_options by contrasting value→value mapping with a single fixed 'Set option' assignment.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('collect the inputs of a value-mapping rule before building it'), a named alternative for the different case (get_attribute_options), and the full downstream workflow: propose pairs, add a map_attribute_value op via create_rule/update_rule, then attach with map_feed_attribute / map_marketplace_attribute / map_ad_attribute using rule_id.

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?