audit

create_sulvo_ad_unit

Create a Sulvo ad unit for an approved publisher. Requires SULVO_API_KEY (with the inventory:write scope) in the server environment, never passed as an argument — an account owner mints a write-scoped key in the Sulvo dashboard (Account Settings -> API key). The Sulvo account must be approved; the backend rejects unapproved accounts. Returns the created unit id and container root.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`size`	No	Ad size as width/height, or a responsive token like responsive_all. Required by the backend for most non-interstitial types.
`type`	Yes	Ad unit type.
`custom`	No	Optional custom unit name.
`domain`	Yes	Publisher domain the ad unit belongs to.
`focusedAd`	No	Only valid for the display type.
`placement`	No	Optional placement weight (0-1).
`outputFormat`	No		markdown

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the API key is from environment variables, that unapproved accounts are rejected, and what is returned (id and container root). It also mentions a behavioral constraint about the size parameter. It could add more about side effects or error cases, but overall is transparent.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information (purpose, prerequisite, condition, return). No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given 7 parameters (nested object), no output schema, and complex prerequisites, the description covers key aspects: key requirement, approval condition, and return value. It could expand on the 'size' parameter's backend requirement or describe the ad unit concept, but it is sufficient for invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 86% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds output info but little extra meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'Returns the created unit id and container root' is useful but not about parameter semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Sulvo ad unit for an approved publisher'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_sulvo_interstitial_units' or 'apply_for_sulvo_account'.

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?

It provides clear context on prerequisites: requires SULVO_API_KEY with specific scope, account must be approved, and the key is never passed as argument. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other creation tools), so it loses one point.

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

All audit 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

C2.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly scoped (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit` vs `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`), but there is confusion with tools like `run_publisher_revenue_audit` and `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist` which sound like they could overlap. Also, `start_sulvo_signup` and `create_sulvo_signup_account` seem to operate on different stages of signup but could be confused at a glance.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is generally consistent with a `verb_sulvo_noun` pattern (e.g., `create_sulvo_ad_unit`, `delete_sulvo_ad_unit`). The `get_` and `run_` prefixes are used somewhat inconsistently (e.g., `run_publisher_revenue_audit` vs `get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist`), and some tool names feel a bit verbose, but overall patterns are recognizable.

Tool Count3/5

With 40 tools, the server covers a massive surface area including signup, activation, reporting, and auditing. While each tool has a specific purpose, the number feels somewhat bloated for a single server, suggesting it could be split into more focused sub-servers (e.g., `sulvo-signup`, `sulvo-reporting`). It is on the high end of 'appropriate'.

Completeness4/5

The tool set appears very complete for the Sulvo ecosystem, covering everything from account creation (`create_sulvo_signup_account`) to auditing (`run_agentic_readiness_audit`) and activation (`submit_sulvo_activation_workspace`). The only minor gap is the lack of a direct way to start signup beyond step 1, but this is documented as an API limitation, not a tool gap.

Resources

Need Help?