Skip to main content
Glama

RTBlint

by io.github.aleksUIX

get_adcp_capabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

AdCP protocol discovery. Returns the AdCP releases this agent speaks and the bid-stream conformance metrics it computes. Call this first when wiring rtblint into an agentic buying pipeline: it declares the experimental measurement protocol and the metric ids (openrtb_error_count, openrtb_warning_count, openrtb_conformance_rate) that validate_bid_request and validate_bid_response produce. Part of the Ad Context Protocol (AdCP 3.1) specification.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
extNoCaller extension object. Accepted and ignored; declared so envelope fields do not trip strict request-wrapper validation.
contextNoCaller-supplied context object. Echoed back unchanged in the response.
protocolsNoFilter which per-protocol capability blocks are returned. Does not narrow supported_protocols, which declares what the agent implements.
adcp_versionNoRelease-precision AdCP version the caller pins (for example "3.1"). When the pin is not in supported_versions the call returns a VERSION_UNSUPPORTED error naming the releases that would work. When omitted, the highest supported release is served.
idempotency_keyNoAdCP 3.1 carries an idempotency key on every task request, reads included. This agent has no mutating surface and no replay store, so the key is accepted and ignored rather than rejected as an unknown field.
adcp_major_versionNoDeprecated in favour of adcp_version. AdCP major version the caller's payloads conform to. When omitted, assumes the highest supported major.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
operatorNo
adcp_versionYes
supported_protocolsYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these by declaring the tool as 'experimental' measurement protocol, noting it is 'Part of the Ad Context Protocol (AdCP 3.1) specification,' and specifying which metric IDs it produces. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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 three sentences: a one-line purpose, a when-to-use directive, and a protocol/spec note. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes essential information without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the rich output schema, full parameter documentation, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's role in the pipeline, names specific outputs, and identifies the protocol specification. However, it could briefly mention that the output schema details the return structure, but the output schema itself already covers that, so it earns a solid 4.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema; it mentions metric IDs in the context of output, not parameters. Since the schema already thoroughly documents all 6 parameters, the description adds no additional value here.

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 opens with 'AdCP protocol discovery' and clearly states it returns 'the AdCP releases this agent speaks and the bid-stream conformance metrics it computes.' This uses a specific verb (discovery/returns) and resource (AdCP releases/metrics), distinguishing it from sibling validation tools like validate_bid_request.

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 explicitly directs when to use the tool: 'Call this first when wiring rtblint into an agentic buying pipeline.' It also links to sibling tools by naming the metrics produced by validate_bid_request and validate_bid_response. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for this discovery role, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All RTBlint toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the RTBlint domain: protocol discovery (get_adcp_capabilities), version enumeration (list_openrtb_versions), ARTF request and response validation (validate_artf_request, validate_artf_response), and OpenRTB payload validation (validate_bid_request, validate_bid_response). The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes and invocation order.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_adcp_capabilities, list_openrtb_versions, validate_artf_request, validate_artf_response, validate_bid_request, validate_bid_response. The naming is uniform, predictable, and clearly indicates the action and target.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of RTB validation and protocol discovery. Each tool addresses a necessary function without redundancy or excess, making the server easy to navigate and integrate into an agentic pipeline.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers key lifecycle steps: discovery, version selection, request validation, response validation, and cross-validation. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for validating mutations that don't involve ARTF, but the ARTF tools handle the core workflow well.

Resources