mcp-server

set_ad_name

Idempotent

Set or clear the human-readable name of an ad so you (and the user) can identify it later. Names are free-text and NOT unique — use this to give an unnamed ad a memorable label, or to rename one. Pass name:"" (empty) to clear the name back to none. Returns {integrationId, action:'set_name', status:'updated', kind, editUrl, message}. ad_id is from list_ads. project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer; project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	New name; pass an empty string to clear the name.
`ad_id`	Yes
`project_id`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the empty-string clearing behavior, the exact response shape, and the conditional project_id inference rule. This is especially valuable because there is no output schema, and the response format is fully documented in prose.

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 front-loaded with the core action and includes nearly all necessary details in a compact paragraph. It is slightly dense with the return-shape list, but each sentence carries information an agent needs, so no sentence is wasted.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, edge case (clearing), return shape, and conditional project handling. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without opening schemas or guessing.

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 33%, but the description fully compensates: name semantics including empty-string behavior, ad_id provenance via list_ads, and the optional/inferred-else-required rule for project_id with a pointer to list_projects. This leaves no parameter ambiguity.

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?

Begins with a specific verb and object: 'Set or clear the human-readable name of an ad', which identifies the exact resource and action. It further distinguishes the tool by noting names are free-text and not unique, making it clear this is a labeling operation rather than a status or mode change.

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?

Provides clear use cases: label an unnamed ad or rename one, and gives the empty-string clearing case. It also gives prerequisites (ad_id from list_ads; call list_projects when project_id is required), but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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?