Skip to main content
Glama

RTBlint

by io.github.aleksUIX

validate_bid_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate an OpenRTB 2.x bid request JSON payload against a tracked spec version. Returns structured issues with rule ids, severities, and JSON paths.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dialectNoJSON dialect the payload is written in. spec-json (default) types flag fields such as imp.secure, regs.coppa and pmp.private_auction as integers, the way the OpenRTB specification does. proto-json follows the IAB OpenRTB protobuf schema, which declares 28 of those fields bool, so true/false is correct there and an integer is the error. Use proto-json for anything that came off a gRPC bidstream integration.
payloadYesThe OpenRTB bid request as a raw JSON string.
profileNoExchange profile applied on top of the spec. spec (default) is the specification only. google-ab is Google Authorized Buyers OpenRTB: at=3 (FIXED_PRICE) is a valid auction type, and each Imp must carry ext.billing_id. prebid-server is Prebid Server /openrtb2/auction: each Imp must name a bidder or stored request, and wseat/bseat are refused. xandr is Microsoft Monetize outgoing requests: ext.appnexus.seller_member_id and video.ext.appnexus.context. magnite is Magnite xAPI identity fields: imp.ext.rp.zone_id, site/app ext.rp.site_id, publisher.ext.rp.account_id.
versionNoOpenRTB 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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
validYesTrue when the payload has zero spec errors.
issuesYes
dialectNo
profileNo
versionYes
payload_typeYes
cross_validatedNo

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the behavioral trait of returning 'structured issues with rule ids, severities, and JSON paths', which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately state the output. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, full schema coverage, and an output schema), the description is complete. It mentions the validation target and the return type, which is sufficient. The output schema handles return value details, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions already present (e.g., dialect, profile, version). The description does not add additional semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'validate', the resource 'OpenRTB 2.x bid request JSON payload', and the specific action 'against a tracked spec version'. It also mentions the output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_bid_response (for responses) and validate_artf_request (for ARTF).

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., validate_bid_response for bid responses). While the context of sibling tools and the name imply usage, explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or when to choose a sibling is missing. The description is adequate but lacks comparative guidance.

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