Skip to main content
Glama

Trillboards DOOH Advertising

get_task_status

[AdCP Protocol] Get the status of a previously issued AdCP task.

Every AdCP task Trillboards serves for an AUTHENTICATED caller is recorded and returned a task_id. Poll that id here to read the task's terminal state and, with include_result: true, its completion payload.

Trillboards answers every AdCP task in-process, so a task is already completed by the time you hold its id — this tool exists so a buyer that polls does not hang, and so an async arm has somewhere to report from when one lands.

TASK SCOPE: tasks are visible only to the account that created them. An id belonging to another account, an id we never issued, or a poll with no credential all answer identically — "Task not found" — so the surface cannot be used to probe which ids exist.

NOT RECORDED: read-only protocol and catalogue calls that AdCP does not model as tasks (get_adcp_capabilities, list_creative_formats, get_media_buys, list_accounts), and any anonymous call, which has no account to scope to.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
contextNo
task_idYesUnique identifier of the task to retrieve, as issued in the `task_id` field of the originating task response.
include_resultNoInclude the task's result payload when status is completed. Defaults to false for lightweight status-only polls.
include_historyNoInclude conversation history. Trillboards tasks complete in-process and hold no multi-turn history, so this is accepted and has no effect.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so comprehensively. It discloses account-scoped visibility, identical 'not found' responses to prevent probing, in-process completion, anonymous-call behavior, and the no-effect include_history semantics. This is unusually transparent for a status-polling tool.

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?

The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and each paragraph has a clear role: behavior, usage, task scope, and exclusions. It is longer than strictly necessary, but the extra protocol and security context earns its place given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers a lot: authentication expectations, task scope, not-found equivalence, include_result behavior, and which call types are not tasks. It remains incomplete on exact response shape, possible status values, and parameter-level guidance for account/context, but it is strong enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 60%, and the description adds useful context around include_result and account scoping, but it does not explain the account or context parameter shapes in any detail. The most valuable parameter guidance already exists in the schema for task_id, include_result, and include_history, so the description mainly reinforces rather than compensates.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'Get the status of a previously issued AdCP task.' It specifies the task_id-based polling scope, which separates it from list-oriented siblings, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against the similar tasks_get/tasks_list siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context: use it when you hold a task_id from a prior task response and need terminal state or completion payload. It also explains which calls are NOT recorded as tasks, effectively excluding them. It stops short of explicitly directing agents to list_tasks or tasks_get for enumeration, so it lacks fully explicit alternative routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are exact duplicates (get_task_status/tasks_get, list_tasks/tasks_list) and several overlapping analytics, attribution, and semantic search clusters (get_attention_metrics vs get_creative_attention vs get_social_attention; find_similar_moments vs semantic_search_observations; get_campaign_attribution vs get_multi_touch_attribution vs get_roas). Detailed descriptions help, but with 83 tools an agent will frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_devices, create_campaign, delete_webhook), but there are notable inconsistencies: list_* and get_* are used interchangeably for list operations, attention tools mix conventions (get_attention_metrics vs get_creative_attention vs get_social_attention), and the legacy tasks_get/tasks_list names break the established get_task_status/list_tasks pattern.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, spanning device management, sensing, campaigns, media buys, attribution, webhooks, billing, API discovery, and AdCP protocol concerns. This is a broad API surface dump rather than a focused tool set, and it would be far better split into several coherent servers.

Completeness2/5

Despite the enormous surface, core campaign lifecycle is incomplete: create_campaign explicitly tells the agent to use update_campaign to activate a campaign, but no update_campaign tool exists, and there are no list/delete campaign tools. Significant capabilities exist for analytics, attribution, and webhooks, but the primary advertising workflow has a dead end.

Resources