mcp-server

set_ad_product_mode

Idempotent

Set how an ad synchronizes products to its channel. Ads are ads-based channels (advertising / price-comparison / classifieds), not marketplaces: they publish products to the ad platform and have no order sync. mode is 'auto' (products are synced automatically — publishes every matching product), 'manual' (NOTHING is auto-published; products go to the channel only when you trigger them, so this is the safe way to activate for a test) or 'pause' (product sync is paused). In MANUAL mode you push items yourself: run_ad_item_action (submit) forces a single item through, and run_ad_operation (submit_all / clean_resubmit_all) forces the whole set — even though auto-publish is off. Returns {integrationId, action:'set_product_mode', status, kind:'ads', editUrl, message} — status is 'updated' for auto/manual and 'paused' for pause; read ad_status or get_ad afterwards to confirm the applied mode. 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
`mode`	Yes	Product sync mode: 'auto', 'manual' or 'pause'.
`ad_id`	Yes
`project_id`	No

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds substantial behavioral context: what auto/manual/pause actually do, that ads have no order sync, that manual mode suppresses auto-publishing, and what status values and return fields to expect. It also tells the agent to confirm the applied mode afterward. No contradiction with 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 earns its place: purpose, channel-type qualification, mode semantics, manual-mode push alternatives, return shape, confirmation step, and parameter provenance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps related details grouped.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the return shape, status values, confirmation guidance, parameter provenance, and mode behavior. Given the tool's complexity and low schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to select and 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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates fully: it explains the meaning of each mode, states that ad_id comes from list_ads, and clarifies when project_id is optional versus required and what to call when it is required. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 how an ad synchronizes products to its channel') and immediately distinguishes ads-based channels from marketplaces, so an agent can tell this tool apart from marketplace-mode siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 each mode is appropriate, calls out 'manual' as the safe test activation path, and explicitly names the alternatives to use afterward (run_ad_item_action, run_ad_operation, ad_status, get_ad, list_projects). This gives the agent clear routing guidance rather than leaving usage implied.

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?