Create Sulvo interstitial ad units (tagless) 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 interstitial 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 must carry the full burden. It says 'Create' implying a write operation but does not disclose any side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. The term 'tagless' adds some specificity but not enough behavioral context.
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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds a key requirement.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and authentication context but lacks details on expected output, error scenarios, or the approval process for publishers.
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 description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 67% schema coverage, it does not compensate for the missing description on 'outputFormat' or elaborate on 'domain' or 'adTypes'.
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 it creates 'Sulvo interstitial ad units (tagless)' for an approved publisher. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'create_sulvo_ad_unit' which likely handles other ad unit types.
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: the SULVO_API_KEY with inventory:write scope in the server environment, and implies the publisher must be approved. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar siblings like 'create_sulvo_ad_unit'.
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.
