Skip to main content
Glama

Audit rule results

audit_rule_result
Read-only

Get account-level audit rule results as a Markdown summary. Returns results for one or more accounts; use accountIds to filter. Never returns disabled rules. Results are grouped by type: Errors Monitoring, Optimizations, Insights. Each rule row includes: Rule Name, Rule Key, ScoreIncrease, Accountability, Classification, Is Campaign Specific (Yes/No: whether a campaign-level breakdown is available for this rule), and the result value. When numberOfWeeks > 0, historical weekly columns are appended (most recent first). ScoreIncrease shows how much the TrueClicks score would improve if the rule were fixed. Use onlyFailed=true to limit to currently failing rules only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountIdsYesOne or more TrueClicks account ids to filter (the numeric Id field from the account listing, not the platform customer id). If empty, all accounts accessible by the connector are returned.
onlyFailedNoIf true, only return rules where the current result is Failed. Default false returns both passed and failed.
numberOfWeeksNoNumber of historical weeks to include (e.g. 8 = last 8 weeks). Default 0 returns current results only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / accountIds / description
      Previous value: -"One or more account IDs to filter. If empty, all accounts accessible by the connector are returned."New value: +"One or more TrueClicks account ids to filter (the numeric Id field from the account listing, not the platform customer id). If empty, all accounts accessible by the connector are returned."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as 'Never returns disabled rules', grouping by type, and historical column appending. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description does not contradict it.

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 information-dense but not bloated. It follows a logical flow: result type, filtering, grouping, columns, and optional historical behavior. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains return format and key columns. It is complete enough for typical use, though it omits edge-case behavior like empty accountIds, ordering, pagination, or error conditions.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers all parameters with 100% coverage, and the description adds extra behavioral meaning, especially for numberOfWeeks ('historical weekly columns are appended, most recent first') and onlyFailed. It reinforces but does not merely echo 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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('account-level audit rule results'), and the output format ('Markdown summary'). It also distinguishes itself as account-level, which helps separate it from campaign-level or output-table sibling tools.

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?

Parameter usage is explained well (accountIds filtering, onlyFailed, numberOfWeeks), but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related siblings like audit_account_result, audit_rule_output_table, or audit_rule_result_campaign. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the audit and report tools (e.g., audit_rule_output_table vs audit_rule_output_table_historical vs audit_rule_result vs audit_rule_result_campaign) are closely related and rely on detailed descriptions to differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is generally consistent with snake_case and domain-prefixed groups (google_ads_*, ms_ads_*, perfmon_*), though a few tools are bare nouns (account, task, user) rather than verb-led, which slightly deviates from the dominant pattern.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is on the higher end but justified for a platform covering multiple ad platforms, audit reports, alerts, and user management; it remains navigable with clear groupings.

Completeness4/5

The tool set comprehensively covers account enumeration, audit results, report execution for major ad platforms, perfmon alerts, pacing targets, tasks, and users. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no create/update/modify operations), but the core analytics and monitoring surface is well covered.

Resources