Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mondovo

by com.mondovo.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Export contacts as an ads customer list

export_ads_audience
Read-onlyIdempotent

The site's contacts as a customer-list CSV for Meta, Google Ads or LinkedIn custom audiences (the Contacts screen's ads export): normalised email, phone, name, city, region, postcode and country; contacts without a usable email are skipped. hashed: true SHA-256 hashes every field so the file is not a raw email list (tick "already hashed" when uploading). This does NOT upload anything to an ads account — the owner uploads the file in the ads platform. Only use people who agreed to marketing. PERSONAL DATA — hand the file only to the user who asked for it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashedNoHash every field with SHA-256 (default false; the ads platforms hash on upload)
site_idYesThe site, from list_sites
max_rowsNoMost rows to include, default 1000, max 2000
user_goalNoOptional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses real behavior: contacts without a usable email are skipped, hashed=true SHA-256-hashes every field, and nothing is pushed to an ad account. It also flags the personal-data handling expectation, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability, then caveats, then the personal-data warning in caps — good ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense as a single paragraph and the field list is long, but every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers what the file contains, what is excluded, hashing behavior, and the important clarification that it does not upload anywhere. With no output schema, it could still say how the file is delivered back (link vs. payload) and mention row-limit behavior, which only the schema covers.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning for `hashed` by explaining what gets hashed and the downstream 'already hashed' upload checkbox. It says nothing extra about max_rows or site_id beyond the schema, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('export the site's contacts as a customer-list CSV') plus the exact target platforms and the field set included. It is clearly separable from the sibling export_contacts_csv by naming the ads use case inline ('the Contacts screen's ads export').

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?

Gives a real usage constraint ('only use people who agreed to marketing') and an explicit non-capability ('this does NOT upload anything to an ads account'), plus the practical instruction to tick 'already hashed' when uploading. It stops short of naming export_contacts_csv as the alternative for a generic contact download, so the exclusion vs. sibling is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mondovo toolsInspect
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