Skip to main content
Glama

네이버 검색광고 광고그룹 수정

naver_searchad__adgroups__update
Destructive

광고그룹 하나를 일시정지하거나 다시 켜거나(userLock), 네트워크별 입찰 가중치나 타기팅(targets 와 fields)을 바꿉니다. 타기팅은 다른 값과 한 요청에 섞을 수 없으니 따로 보냅니다. nccAdgroupId 는 광고그룹 목록 조회에서 얻습니다. 바뀐 결과는 네이버 검색광고의 응답으로 돌려줍니다. 입찰가와 하루 예산은 아직 이 도구로 정하거나 바꿀 수 없습니다. bidAmt, dailyBudget, budget 을 넣은 요청은 거절되므로 네이버 검색광고 관리 화면에서 정하도록 안내하세요. 먼저 네이버 검색광고 계정을 연동해야 합니다. This writes to the institution. The first call is not executed: it returns a preview of exactly what will be sent and a one-time confirmation_token (error WRITE_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED). Show that preview to the user as it is. Only after the user agrees, call again with the same arguments plus that confirmation_token. Never add the token without the user's agreement. Changing any argument makes the token invalid; call without the token to get a new preview. 호출마다 토큰 1소진 요청 처리 시 XBOSS 작업을 생성하고 처리 결과를 저장합니다. 기관 원본의 조회 여부와 별개로 이 호출은 순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다. 기관 데이터 변경은 도구별 실행 내용과 기존 확인 절차를 따릅니다.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "nccAdgroupId": "<nccAdgroupId>"
    },
    "name": "naver_searchad__adgroups__update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNo바꾸는 타기팅 종류(쉼표로 구분). targets 와 함께 보냅니다.
targetsNo설정할 타기팅 객체 목록. fields 와 함께 보냅니다.
userLockNotrue 면 일시정지하고 false 면 다시 켭니다.
nccAdgroupIdYes광고그룹 id(nccAdgroupId). 광고그룹 목록 조회 결과에서 얻습니다.
account_link_idNo연동 ID(UUID v4). 선택 입력입니다. 비워 두면 서버가 API 키로 연동을 찾아 씁니다. 같은 서비스에 계정을 여러 개 연동했을 때만 직접 입력해 주세요.
confirmation_tokenNo첫 호출이 돌려준 1회용 확인 토큰입니다(오류 WRITE_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED). 같은 인자에 이 값을 그대로 넣어 다시 호출하면 실행됩니다. 10분 뒤 만료되고 한 번만 쓸 수 있습니다.
pcNetworkBidWeightNoPC 네트워크 입찰 가중치(퍼센트).
mobileNetworkBidWeightNo모바일 네트워크 입찰 가중치(퍼센트).
useCntsNetworkBidWeightNotrue 면 contentsNetworkBidWeight 를 적용합니다.
contentsNetworkBidWeightNo콘텐츠 네트워크 입찰 가중치(퍼센트).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond that by documenting the two-phase write confirmation (first call returns a preview plus a one-time confirmation_token under WRITE_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED), the requirement to show the preview verbatim and obtain user agreement, token invalidation on any argument change, and the XBOSS job creation side effect. It also explicitly warns that this call is not purely read-only despite any upstream lookups.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose, constraints, and confirmation flow are front-loaded and earn their place, but the tail end drifts into generic platform boilerplate about XBOSS jobs and institutional data provenance that repeats the write semantics already stated. The abrupt Korean/English mixing also costs readability for no informational gain.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, the confirmation protocol, field exclusions, and request-shape constraints. The only real gap is that it says results come back 'in the Naver Search Ad response' without describing that shape, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express: targets and fields must be sent in a separate request from all other values. It also names rejected fields (bidAmt, dailyBudget, budget) that do not appear in the schema at all, which prevents a class of failed calls.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource (광고그룹 하나를 ... 바꿉니다) and enumerates the exact mutation surface: pause/resume via userLock, per-network bid weights, and targeting via targets/fields. An agent can distinguish this from adgroup create/delete/read without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (pause, resume, bid weight, targeting), explicit when-not-to-use (bidAmt, dailyBudget, budget are rejected — direct the user to the Naver UI), an operational constraint (targeting cannot be mixed with other values in one request), and a prerequisite (the Naver Search Ad account must be linked first). This is close to a complete routing rule.

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.

Resources