Taseli

Creatives and their results

get_creatives

Read-onlyIdempotent

Each picture and video in the ads (with its id) with its own last-30-day results (spend, results, CTR, cost per result), a verdict (good, ok, weak, untested, unused, new) judged among that account's own creatives, whether it is live, whether it matches the current offer, and for videos what was watched: the hook, the offer, voice and on-screen words. Useful for 'which creatives work?', 'which video is best?', 'what should I replace?'.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_creatives"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Only this creative: its id, e.g. the one the owner is looking at.
`kind`	No	Only pictures or only videos.
`account`	No	An ad account's name, to look at one account; omit for all of them.
`verdict`	No	Only creatives with this verdict.
`language`	No	Answer language. The business's language by default.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A plain note instead of data (nothing connected yet, not available here).
`error`	No	Why nothing was done, as a short code.
`truncated`	No
`truncatedNote`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world reads. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are last-30-day, verdicts are relative to that account's own creatives, and videos include hook/offer/voice/on-screen analysis. It doesn't state whether 'untested'/'unused'/'new' verdicts lack results data, a nuance an agent might need.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The payload list is front-loaded and dense with informative nouns rather than filler; each enumerated field is a real return value. The long first sentence is slightly heavy but nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't spell out return structure, and it still summarizes the key fields. Coverage of how the filters combine and whether results are per-account aggregates is left implicit, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying the verdict is judged among the account's own creatives, which gives the verdict filter real semantics. It adds little about id/kind/account/language filtering beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (pictures and videos in the ads, with ids) and enumerates the payload: 30-day results, a verdict, live status, offer match, and video watched-content. It is clearly distinct from get_results or get_ad_set_health, though the opening phrasing ('Each picture and video...') is more a data listing than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

Names concrete use cases ('which creatives work?', 'which video is best?', 'what should I replace?') that map well to the tool's output. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming which sibling to use for aggregate results versus per-creative results.

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

All Taseli tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?