Skip to main content
Glama

Trillboards DOOH Advertising

predict_moment_quality

Predict the VAS (Viewability Attention Score) a specific creative would achieve at a given moment, based on historical data and causal modeling.

Uses the CausalPredictionService which:

  1. Embeds the moment description to find historically similar moments

  2. If >= 5 similar moments exist with the same creative, uses weighted-average prediction

  3. If insufficient data, falls back to Gemini generative prediction

  4. Always decomposes the prediction into causal factors

WHEN TO USE:

  • Evaluating whether a creative will perform well in a specific context

  • A/B testing creative placement hypotheses before committing budget

  • Understanding which causal factors drive VAS for a creative

  • Comparing expected performance across different moment types

RETURNS:

  • prediction: { predictedVAS (0-1), confidence (0-1), method ('historical'|'model'), sampleSize }

  • causal_factors: { audienceMatch, contextMatch, attentionState, socialPotential } (each 0-1)

  • metadata: { creative_id, moment_description }

  • suggested_next_queries: Follow-up queries

EXAMPLE: User: "How would a coffee ad perform at a transit station during morning rush?" predict_moment_quality({ moment_description: "transit venue, morning commute, 12 viewers, high attention, mostly 25-34 age range", creative_id: "coffee-brand-morning-30s" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
creative_idYesThe creative/ad ID to predict performance for.
moment_descriptionYesNatural-language description of the target moment context. Include venue type, time of day, audience size, demographics, attention level, etc.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm steps (embedding, similarity threshold, weighted-average vs. generative fallback, causal decomposition) and return structure. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the core behavioral logic is well explained.

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 well-organized with clear sections (purpose, algorithm, WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, EXAMPLE). Every sentence adds valuable information, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to grasp the tool's function quickly.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It summarizes the return object, provides usage scenarios, explains the fallback logic, and includes a concrete example, giving an AI agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text. The description adds value by providing an example that shows exactly what to include in moment_description (venue, time, audience, demographics) and explains how the parameter is used in the prediction process, going beyond the schema.

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 clearly states what the tool does: predicts VAS for a creative in a specific moment using historical data and causal modeling. It specifies the exact resource (creative + moment) and output (VAS score), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_attention_metrics or recommend_creative.

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 clear scenarios such as evaluating creative placements, A/B testing, and understanding causal factors. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would be beneficial given the large sibling list.

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