audit

get_sulvo_report

Fetch a Sulvo report (read-only). Requires SULVO_API_KEY in the server environment (a publisher generates it in the dashboard: Account Settings -> API key). Covers by-date, by-date-and-ad-unit, by-domain-and-ad-unit, bot-filtering, bot-scores, invalid-activity, direct-bidder-analysis, and ad-units-by-domain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	No	End date (YYYY-MM-DD or ISO).
`start`	No	Start date (YYYY-MM-DD or ISO). Required by most date-bounded reports.
`adRoots`	No	Filter to these ad unit roots.
`domains`	No	Filter to these publisher domains.
`adProvider`	No	Optional provider filter (e.g. relabe, adsense).
`reportType`	Yes	Which report to fetch.
`directBidder`	No	Required for direct-bidder-analysis: the bidder name.
`outputFormat`	No		markdown

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

States read-only nature and required API key, which are important behavioral traits. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it lacks disclosure on potential side effects, rate limits, or data freshness, making it adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and prerequisite, second lists report types. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers purpose, prerequisite, and report types. Lacks detail on output format or typical use cases, but given the presence of outputFormat parameter and sibling tools, it is minimally adequate.

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 high (88%), so baseline is 3. Description reinforces the schema by listing report types but does not add new meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present in the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Fetch a Sulvo report (read-only)' with a specific verb and resource. Lists all supported report types, distinguishing get_sulvo_report from sibling tools that are mostly mutations (create, delete, update) and other list tools like list_sulvo_advanced_reports.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Mentions prerequisite (SULVO_API_KEY) and lists report types, providing context on when to use. However, does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_sulvo_advanced_reports or specify when not to use this tool.

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?