Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.koongo

list_ads

Read-only

List the CREATED ads of a project (the advertising integrations that already exist, not the catalog of channels you can add — use list_ad_channels for that). Ads are ads-based channels (advertising / price-comparison / classifieds), not marketplaces: they publish products to the ad platform and have no order sync. Returns {integrations, returned, total}; each row is {integrationId, projectId, name, channelCode, kind:'ads', definitionCode, status, ready, lastStep, isReady, isConnected, isOverlimit, productMode, orderMode, orderSync}. project_id is OPTIONAL: with it you get that project's ads; WITHOUT it you get ads across ALL your projects (each row carries its projectId). If a call returns project_id_required, pick a project (see list_projects) and pass its project_id. integrationId is what you pass as ad_id to get_ad / ad_status and the other ads tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNo

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: return shape, row fields, absence of order sync, and the meaning of project_id omission. It clarifies what the tool does and returns, going well beyond the structured annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but every sentence adds essential information: tool scope, sibling differentiation, return structure, parameter semantics, and integrationId linkage. Information is front-loaded with the core action and definition first.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the full return structure and key field list. It covers the optional parameter behavior, error signaling, and how the returned integrationId connects to other tools. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 by explaining the project_id parameter: optional, scopes to one project or all projects, and its relationship to project_id_required. This gives the agent complete semantic understanding beyond the bare integer type.

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 clearly states the tool lists existing ads for a project, distinguishing it from list_ad_channels and clarifying that ads are ad-based channels, not marketplaces. It explicitly differentiates from siblings and gives the exact resource being operated 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?

It explicitly says when to use list_ad_channels instead, explains the optional project_id behavior with and without it, and describes what to do if project_id_required is returned. This is direct, actionable routing 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 toolsInspect
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