Trillboards DOOH Advertising

list_creative_formats

[AdCP Media Buy] List the creative formats this network actually accepts.

Every format is DERIVED from live per-screen capability (panel size, min/max spot length, audio) — not a hand-written list. The set published here is exactly the set sync_creatives accepts: if a creative matches a format returned by this tool, it will not be rejected for dimensions, duration or file size.

WHEN TO USE:

Before building creative, to size it to the panels you are buying
To check whether an existing asset can run on this network
To find the panel sizes with the most reach (results are ordered by live screen count)

RETURNS:

formats: AdCP Format objects (format_id, name, renders[].dimensions, assets[].requirements)
pagination: cursor-based; total_count is the full catalogue size
Each format carries ext.trillboards with the live screen count, the share of the network, how many of those screens have audio, and — for video — duration_coverage: how many screens accept a spot of at most 10/15/20/30/60/120/300 seconds. A long ceiling does not mean every screen at that size can play it, and this says so.

EXAMPLE: User: "What sizes and lengths does this network take?" list_creative_formats({ pagination: { max_results: 20 } })

User: "Can I run a 1080x1920 portrait video?" list_creative_formats({ format_ids: [{ agent_url: "https://api.trillboards.com/mcp", id: "dooh_video_1080x1920" }] })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	No
`max_width`	No	Maximum render width in pixels (inclusive)
`min_width`	No	Minimum render width in pixels (inclusive)
`format_ids`	No	Return only these formats. Each entry is an AdCP structured format reference ({agent_url, id}), never a bare string.
`max_height`	No	Maximum render height in pixels (inclusive)
`min_height`	No	Minimum render height in pixels (inclusive)
`pagination`	No	Cursor-based pagination
`asset_types`	No	Filter to formats containing these asset types, e.g. ['video'] or ['image'].
`name_search`	No	Case-insensitive partial match on the format name
`is_responsive`	No	Filter for responsive formats. Every DOOH panel is a fixed pixel grid, so true matches nothing here.
`publisher_domain`	No	Resolve formats for this publisher. This agent derives formats from its own inventory only, so anything other than 'trillboards.com' returns an empty list with UNSUPPORTED_PUBLISHER_DOMAIN.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers exceptionally: it reveals that formats are live-derived, exactly match what sync_creatives accepts, are ordered by live screen count, use cursor-based pagination, and explains the duration_coverage nuance. This goes well beyond a typical tool description.

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 long but every section earns its place: a one-line summary, derivation note, explicit when-to-use bullets, return structure, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and scoped details, with no redundant filler.

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 tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return formats, pagination behavior, ext.trillboards fields, duration_coverage semantics, and even illustrates two realistic calls. An agent has enough context to invoke it 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 91%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description's examples show usage of pagination and format_ids, and it adds contextual meaning like ordering by live screen count, but it does not substantially enrich parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the creative formats this network actually accepts,' which clearly identifies both the action and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_creatives and sync_creatives by emphasizing that the formats are derived from live per-screen capability, not a hand-written list.

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?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section provides three concrete scenarios: before building creative, checking existing assets, and finding panel sizes with most reach. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Trillboards DOOH Advertising tools Inspect

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

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

Need Help?