RTBlint

validate_artf_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate an ARTF (IAB Tech Lab Agentic Real Time Framework) RTBRequest envelope: required members, lifecycle and payload coherence, tmax plausibility, originator and applicable_intents enums, plus full OpenRTB validation of the bid request and bid response it carries. The carried payloads are protobuf JSON, so they are validated in that dialect.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "validate_artf_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payload`	Yes	The ARTF RTBRequest envelope as a raw JSON string.
`version`	No	OpenRTB version id to validate against (default 2.6-202606). One of: 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6-202204, 2.6-202210, 2.6-202211, 2.6-202303, 2.6-202309, 2.6-202402, 2.6-202409, 2.6-202501, 2.6-202505, 2.6-202606, 3.0
`sample_kind`	No	Label test-generated payloads as synthetic in validation telemetry.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`valid`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`payload_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / sample_kind

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Label test-generated payloads as synthetic in validation telemetry.",
+  "enum": [
+    "submitted",
+    "synthetic"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the exact validation dimensions—required members, lifecycle and payload coherence, tmax plausibility, enums, and full OpenRTB validation in protobuf JSON dialect.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, then efficiently lists the validation scope. Every clause adds relevant information without repetition or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complex validation task, rich annotations, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the validation surface and payload dialect without needing to duplicate return-value documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful payload semantics by clarifying that carried payloads are protobuf JSON and validated in that dialect, though it does not add detail for version or sample_kind beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: validate an ARTF RTBRequest envelope. It enumerates the validation scope, including envelope structure and carried OpenRTB payloads, which distinguishes it from sibling validators such as validate_bid_request and validate_artf_response.

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?

The scope clearly implies this tool is for ARTF RTBRequest envelopes and not for standalone bid requests/responses or ARTF responses. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over validate_bid_request or validate_artf_response, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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

All RTBlint 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.