Opus Growth, Ad Platforms MCP Connector

Report Issue

report_issue

Destructive

Reports a bug or unexpected failure to Opus Growth support: pass a short summary, the failing tool_name, and any error details. The user is emailed when the issue is resolved. title, description and text are accepted as synonyms of summary/details, so a report is never lost to a parameter-name mismatch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`title`	No
`details`	No
`summary`	No
`tool_name`	No
`description`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 20, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / description
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / summary / default
```
Added value: +""
```
- addedInput schema / properties / text
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / title
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "summary"
-]
```
First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the user is emailed when the issue is resolved. However, it is silent on the annotation profile the agent must reconcile — `destructiveHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true` for what reads like a benign ticket submission, and `idempotentHint: false` means duplicate reports are possible. Those gaps leave the safety picture partly unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required inputs, then the side effect, then the synonym fallback. The synonym paragraph is a little long for the point it makes but each clause is load-bearing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully covered. What remains unstated is what the tool requires of the caller (auth/permission context) and why it is flagged destructive and non-idempotent — minor but real gaps for a ticket-filing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and six mutually redundant parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so: it maps `summary`, `tool_name`, and `details` to their purpose and explicitly declares `title`, `description`, and `text` to be accepted synonyms. An agent can construct a call without guessing which name to use.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reporting a bug or unexpected failure to Opus Growth support, with the concrete inputs to pass. It is distinguishable from read-side diagnostics, though it never names the sibling `issue_status` that would let an agent check an existing report.

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 implied by the trigger conditions ('a bug or unexpected failure'), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to `issue_status` or any alternative path for follow-up on an already-filed report. Adequate but inferential.

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

All Opus Growth, Ad Platforms MCP Connector 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.