[Sell] Update or deactivate one of your ad placements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| active | No | ||
| feedType | No | Optional opaque product-feed type (tiktok_us_shop | affiliate_network). Omit to leave unchanged. | |
| adUnitType | No | ||
| roasRating | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| placementId | Yes | ||
| rateCredits | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / feedTypeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional opaque product-feed type (tiktok_us_shop | affiliate_network). Omit to leave unchanged.",
+ "enum": [
+ "tiktok_us_shop",
+ "affiliate_network"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / roasRatingAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 10,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing whether deactivation is reversible, how updates are applied (partial vs. full), permissions needed, or side effects on related campaigns. The lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of potential consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the essential action. However, given the tool's 8 parameters and lack of annotations, the description may be too sparse to be fully helpful. It earns its place but could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex schema (8 params), no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values, the meaning or impact of updates, or the distinction between updating and deactivating. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 13% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters, but it mentions none. The schema lists parameters like roasRating and rateCredits without meaning, and the description adds no clarification. The only parameter described in the schema is feedType, which the description ignores.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update or deactivate one of your ad placements.' It specifies a concrete verb (update/deactivate) on a specific resource (ad placements), and the '[Sell]' prefix indicates the domain context. This distinguishes it from siblings like buy_placement and list_placement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage context—modifying an existing placement—but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like buy_placement or search_placements. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when to use a different tool, offering only a hint from the '[Sell]' prefix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping or misleading purposes: buy_campaign and buy_placement are aliases of create_campaign, list_placement actually creates a placement, and get_attribution/get_campaign both provide campaign stats. The report_* tools are distinct but similarly named, increasing selection risk.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but there are notable deviations: buy_campaign/buy_placement use 'buy' instead of 'create', list_placement is a creator not a lister, and simple nouns like 'wallet' and 'whoami' break the convention.
At 31 tools, the server feels heavy. Several tools are redundant aliases (buy_campaign, buy_placement) or could be consolidated (multiple report_* and list_* variants), making the surface unnecessarily large for the ad marketplace domain.
The core lifecycle is covered: campaign/placement creation, delivery, reporting, attribution, refunds, and cashouts. However, there are gaps like no update_campaign, no true list_placements, and no get_placement, leaving some workflows incomplete.