audit

save_sulvo_advanced_report

Create/update a Sulvo advanced report (adUnit, dimensions, or customData), run immediately (emailed) or on a recurring schedule. Requires SULVO_API_KEY (with the reports:write scope) in the server environment. Note: advanced reports are delivered by email, not returned inline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	No
`name`	No
`utms`	No	customData (UTM) reports only.
`start`	No
`adRoots`	No
`domains`	No
`reportId`	No	Provide to update an existing saved report.
`timeZone`	No	IANA timezone for scheduled delivery.
`frequency`	No	Required when immediateRun is false.
`toAddress`	Yes	Email address the report is delivered to.
`dimensions`	No
`reportType`	Yes	Advanced report type.
`immediateRun`	Yes	true to run now (emailed), false to only schedule (requires frequency).
`outputFormat`	No		markdown
`utmHourlyBreakdown`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the email delivery, immediate/schedule modes, and API key requirement. However, it does not explain behavior on update (merge vs replace), idempotency, or error handling.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a note, every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers high-level purpose but lacks detail on report types, update semantics, scheduling mechanics, and return format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 47%. The description adds context for immediateRun and frequency (run now vs schedule) but does not elaborate on other parameters like adRoots, domains, or dimensions, which are only partially described 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates/updates a Sulvo advanced report (adUnit, dimensions, or customData) and can run immediately or schedule it. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_sulvo_advanced_report and 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description specifies the required API key and scope (reports:write) and notes that reports are emailed not returned, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sulvo_report.

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?