mcp-server

map_ad_attribute

Idempotent

Set where ONE of an ad's output attributes gets its value — the write half of solving the attribute form. Target the output attribute by code (from get_ad_attributes). Set platform_code to a source attribute (from list_source_attributes) to map it, and/or constant for a fixed value; default_platform_code / default_constant are the fallback used when the primary source is empty. For an IDENTIFIER (sku, gtin/ean/barcode, mpn), first confirm the chosen source is actually populated across the catalog (get_project_profile eanFillRate; page preview_products) — mapping or requiring an identifier the products lack yields an empty, non-functional integration. rule_id attaches an Attribute Rule (from list_rules / create_rule) — the value is then computed by that rule; send rule_id:"" to detach it, and rule_enabled:false to attach it disabled. To re-enable an attached-but-disabled rule, send rule_enabled:true (with or without its rule_id, from get_ad_attributes). rule_enabled on its own applies to whatever rule is already attached; with none attached it is rejected as unknown_rule. Provide at least one field (send an empty string to clear a text field). rule_id together with platform_code/constant in the same call is contradictory and is rejected. Setting a source (platform_code/constant) on an attribute that currently has a rule DETACHES that rule (mutually exclusive; changed then includes rule_id). SAVE + REBUILD: the mapping is written to the integration and its built feed is rebuilt immediately, but reaching the ad platform still needs a re-export/submit — call repair_ad or run_ad_operation (submit_all) afterwards (auto-pilot ads re-export on their next sync). Map only attributes returned by get_ad_attributes; hidden ones are internal and cannot be mapped by regular users. Returns {integrationId, code, status, changed:[...], reason, rebuilt}; status is 'updated' | 'no_changes' | 'rejected' (reason: unknown_attribute | unknown_source_attribute | value_not_allowed | unknown_rule). Category-specific attributes are mapped here too, the same way — but they only exist after a category is mapped, so run refresh_ad_category_attributes first (they then appear in get_ad_attributes). ad_id is from list_ads. project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`ad_id`	Yes
`rule_id`	No
`constant`	No
`project_id`	No
`rule_enabled`	No
`platform_code`	No
`default_constant`	No
`default_platform_code`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses side effects and edge cases: rebuilding the feed, detaching a rule when a source is set, rejecting rule_id plus platform_code/constant, rejecting rule_enabled without an attached rule, and the need for a later repair_ad/run_ad_operation. It also documents status/reason values, which the annotations do not.

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?

The description is very long, but the opening sentence front-loads the core action and nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint or consequence. It loses a point only because the density and single-paragraph format make it harder to scan, not because content is redundant.

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 supplies the full return shape plus all status/reason values, prerequisites, fallback semantics, and post-call actions. It covers every parameter and important sequencing, leaving no obvious gap for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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?

The schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the prose explains every one: code, platform_code, constant, default_platform_code, default_constant, rule_id, rule_enabled, ad_id, and project_id. It also explains empty-string clearing, the rule_id:'' detach value, and contradictory parameter combinations.

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 opening line names the exact operation: 'Set where ONE of an ad's output attributes gets its value' and calls itself 'the write half of solving the attribute form', which separates it from read tools like get_ad_attributes. Scoping to ad attributes with ad_id and code distinguishes it from marketplace/feed mapping siblings even without naming them.

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?

It gives strong when-to-use guidance: target attributes from get_ad_attributes, source from list_source_attributes, refresh_ad_category_attributes before category attributes, and avoid mapping identifiers that lack catalog population. There is no explicit 'use map_feed_attribute/map_marketplace_attribute instead' clause, but the ad-specific scoping makes the intended context clear.

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?