Skip to main content
Glama

Trillboards DOOH Advertising

by io.github.snehdhruv

tasks_get

[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.

LEGACY NAME. Identical to get_task_status; this is the name the AdCP MCP binding emits (agent.protocol === "mcp" ? "tasks_get" : "tasks/get"). Prefer get_task_status in new code.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: tasks complete in-process, other-account/unknown/unauthenticated polls return identical 'not found' responses, and certain calls are not recorded as tasks. This gives an agent accurate expectations about timing, error equivalence, and privacy-scoped visibility.

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 description is long but front-loaded and clearly organized with TASK SCOPE, NOT RECORDED, and LEGACY NAME sections. Some phrasing is more expansive than strictly necessary, but each section contributes behavioral, scope, or routing context.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers selection criteria, visibility scope, timing, error behavior, and the duplicate sibling, which is most of what an agent needs. The main remaining gap is the optional account/context objects and the precise shape of the returned state or payload.

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?

The description adds useful meaning for task_id ('poll that id here') and include_result ('completion payload'), and it confirms include_history is a no-op. However, the account and context parameters remain effectively undocumented in both the schema and the description, and with 60% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for that gap.

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 first sentence names the exact operation ('Get the status of a previously issued AdCP task') with a clear resource and a specific verb. The rest of the description reinforces the resource's scope, the completion payload option, and the relationship to the duplicate sibling get_task_status, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: poll a previously issued task_id, optionally with include_result true to get the completion payload. It also names get_task_status as identical and states a preference for it in new code, and it enumerates read-only calls that are NOT RECORDED as tasks, preventing misuse.

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 toolsInspect
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