mcp-server

run_ad_item_action

Destructive

Run a listing action on one, several, or all items of an ad integration. DESTRUCTIVE: these actions PUSH TO THE LIVE AD CHANNEL — they submit, relist, remove or otherwise change what appears on the channel. Confirm with the user first, then call with confirm:true. Without confirm:true the call returns error 'confirm_required' (HTTP 400) and nothing runs. action is one of: 'submit' (send items to the channel — works even in MANUAL product mode: it forces the targeted item(s) through, so submitting a single item_id is the safe way to test-publish one item and watch the result before doing the rest), 'clean_resubmit' (clear the channel listing and submit again), 'clean' (clear the channel listing), 'remove' (remove/end the listing on the channel), 'force_insert' (force a fresh insert), 'lock' / 'unlock' (lock/unlock items from automatic changes), 'pause' (pause the items), 'repricer_enable' (where supported). An action the channel does not support returns status:'not_allowed'. Target items with item_ids (an array of itemId from list_ad_items) OR all_items:true for every item; provide exactly one. Returns {integrationId, action, status ('queued'|'done'|'not_allowed'), itemCount, async, message}. ad_id is the integrationId from list_ads. project_id is OPTIONAL (project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ad_id`	Yes	integrationId of the ad (from list_ads).
`action`	Yes	The listing action to run against the live ad channel.
`confirm`	No
`item_ids`	No	itemId values (from list_ad_items) to act on. Use this OR all_items.
`all_items`	No	Apply to every item of the integration. Use this OR item_ids.
`project_id`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the real-world impact ('PUSH TO THE LIVE AD CHANNEL'), the mandatory confirm behavior and the confirm_required HTTP 400 error, the not_allowed response for unsupported actions, and the return shape. This gives the agent an accurate model of consequences and failure modes.

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 dense and long but every sentence carries operational value — confirmation handling, action semantics, targeting rules, and response fields. It is front-loaded with the destructive warning and confirm requirement. Minor deduction for a wall-of-text structure that could benefit from bullets.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the exact return fields ({integrationId, action, status, itemCount, async, message}), covers required and optional parameters, specifies error behavior, and explains how to resolve IDs from sibling tools. For a destructive, multi-action tool with 6 parameters and 9 enums, this is remarkably complete.

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 only 67%, but the description compensates fully: it explains confirm's necessity, project_id's optionality and when it becomes required, the item_ids/all_items exclusivity, and the semantic differences among action enum values, including the special safe-test behavior of submit. This adds meaning well beyond the raw parameter names.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run a listing action on ... items of an ad integration') and enumerates all valid actions with concrete effects (submit, clean_resubmit, remove, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by anchoring it to 'ad integration' items and referencing list_ad_items/list_ads for IDs.

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?

The description gives strong usage guidance: confirm must be set to true, exactly one of item_ids or all_items must be provided, and submit in MANUAL mode is suggested as the safe way to test-publish one item. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings like run_ad_operation or run_marketplace_item_action, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?