Boardroom Revenue Control

Ad attribution

ad_attribution

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which advertisement produced which conversation: ad id, creative, first-touch flag, and the lead it bound to. The per-click id is NOT returned — only whether one exists. An empty result means no ad-driven conversation has been recorded in the window, not that the tool failed. [scope: marketing:read]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of rows to return.
`since`	No	today \| week \| month \| 30d \| ISO timestamp (Asia/Dubai days).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	False when the call was refused or failed; see error.
`error`	No	Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false.
`message`	No	Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false."
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string)."
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "False when the call was refused or failed; see error.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Added value: +"Maximum number of rows to return."
```
First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the per-click id is deliberately withheld (only existence is reported), and an empty result means no ad-driven conversation was recorded rather than a failure. It also surfaces the required auth scope [marketing:read], which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the privacy caveat, then the empty-result semantics. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned at a field level, the notable omission (per-click id), the failure-vs-empty distinction, and the required scope. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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 schema already documents 'limit' and 'since' fully. The description only indirectly references the time window ('in the window') and adds no format or default details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific mapping (advertisement → conversation) and enumerates the returned fields (ad id, creative, first-touch flag, bound lead), so an agent knows exactly what this resource is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like marketing_snapshot or agent_conversations, but the resource is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for finding which ad produced a conversation, and the 'in the window' phrasing hints at the time-scoping parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to an alternative sibling for related questions.

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

All Boardroom Revenue Control 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.