Create Sulvo auto-sticky ad units for an approved publisher. Requires SULVO_API_KEY (with the inventory:write scope) in the server environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Publisher domain the units belong to. | |
| adTypes | Yes | One or more sticky ad types to create. | |
| outputFormat | No | markdown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It indicates creation (mutation) and a required API key, but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, response format, or any potential issues like duplicate handling or creation confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it is slightly underspecified, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no output schema, the description lacks details about return values, confirmation of creation, and behavioral nuances. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the full impact and response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is moderate but not compensated by description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'Sulvo auto-sticky ad units' for an approved publisher, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_sulvo_ad_unit and create_sulvo_interstitial_units.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite (approved publisher and API key) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for sticky units only, but lacks direct comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
