mcp-server

map_feed_attribute

Idempotent

Set where one feed attribute's value comes from. Target the output attribute by code (from get_feed). 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. rule_id attaches a product rule (Attribute Rule, from list_rules / create_rule) — the attribute's value is then computed by that rule; send rule_id:"" to detach it (revert to platform_code/constant), 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_feed). 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 (source and rule are mutually exclusive; changed then includes rule_id). SAVE-ONLY: persists the mapping and bumps the revision but does NOT regenerate the feed — call export_feed afterwards for the change to reach the output. Map only attributes returned by get_feed. Returns {feedId, code, status, changed:[...], reason, revisionBefore, revisionAfter}; status is 'updated' | 'no_changes' | 'rejected' (reason: unknown_attribute | unknown_source_attribute | value_not_allowed | unknown_rule). (rule_id together with platform_code/constant is a request-level invalid_request/400, not a 'rejected' reason.) project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer). Attributes flagged hidden in get_feed are internal plumbing and cannot be mapped by regular users; skip them. PRECEDENCE: a feed value is resolved rule → composed → platform_code → constant (valueSource 'rule' is a Rule). If an attribute's valueSource (from get_feed) is 'composed', its value comes from a composed rule, so a platform_code/constant you set here is silently overridden — change composed values in the Koongo UI (the feed's editUrl). A 'rule' value source (a Rule), however, is settable here via rule_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: SAVE-ONLY semantics, the need to call export_feed, mutual exclusivity of rule_id with source fields, rule_enabled rejection with no attached rule, silent override for composed values, and return status/reason vocabulary. This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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 long but every sentence earns its place for a 9-parameter tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized around save-only behavior, error modes, precedence, and edge cases. The SAVE-ONLY and PRECEDENCE markers help an agent scan.

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?

For a complex mutation with no output schema and no param coverage, this is exceptionally complete. It covers return shape, status and reason enums, request-level 400 distinction, optional project_id, hidden-attribute restrictions, precedence resolution, and rule detachment behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It explains code, platform_code, constant, default_platform_code/default_constant, rule_id, rule_enabled, project_id, and the clearing behavior with empty strings. Only feed_id is implicit, but context makes it obvious.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set where one feed attribute's value comes from.' It immediately distinguishes the feed-attribute mapping scope from sibling tools like map_ad_attribute and map_marketplace_attribute by repeatedly grounding it in get_feed and feed-specific concepts.

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 explains when to map (attributes returned by get_feed), when not to map (hidden attributes, composed-value source attributes), and what to do after a successful save ('call export_feed afterwards'). It even directs composed values to the Koongo UI as an alternative.

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?