mcp-server

submit_ad_items

Destructive

AD items: submit — send the chosen items to the LIVE ad channel, also in MANUAL product mode (one item_id is the safe test). Use this when the user asks to publish specific listings. Needs confirm:true after the user agrees. Target item_ids or all_items:true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ad_id": "<ad_id>"
    },
    "name": "submit_ad_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ad_id`	Yes	integrationId of the ad (from list_ads).
`confirm`	No	true only after the user approved; without it the call returns confirm_required and nothing runs.
`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 ad. Use this OR item_ids.
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds substantive context: the target is a LIVE channel, submission works in MANUAL product mode, and omitting/withholding confirm returns confirm_required without executing anything. It does not say what happens post-submit or whether a submission can be undone.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action and channel front-loaded and the confirm gate and targeting options after. The telegraphic 'AD items: submit —' prefix is slightly fragmentary but costs little.

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 destructive, non-idempotent live-publish tool with no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what it does, where it publishes, the confirmation gate, and how to scope or de-risk the call. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by advising a single item_id as the safe test and reiterating the item_ids/all_items exclusivity. It adds no detail on ad_id or project_id beyond what the schema documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('send the chosen items to the LIVE ad channel') plus the product-mode caveat. It is distinguishable from siblings like clean_submit_* or force_insert_*, though the overlap with submit_all_ad_items (since all_items:true is supported here) is not addressed.

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?

'Use this when the user asks to publish specific listings' gives a clear triggering condition, and it names the confirm:true prerequisite and a safe single-item test strategy. It stops short of explicitly contrasting this with submit_all_ad_items or force_insert_ad_items, which is the main routing ambiguity.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?