AdsAgent — TikTok Ads MCP

Execute an approved mixed TikTok plan

approval_plan_confirm

Destructive

After explicit user approval of every displayed item, execute the stored mixed advertising plan identified by approval_ref and expected_plan_digest. Supply the exact expected_changes returned by prepare so the host can inspect targets and effects; the server rejects any mismatch. May create, copy, edit, remove or change delivery, budgets and bids of advertising resources, affecting spend. Only registered operation-specific executors run, with their current permissions and validation. Execution is sequential, not atomic at the provider. Stop on failure or uncertainty; preserve per-item receipts. A repeat returns the existing outcome or resumes only proven-unsent quota-deferred items after retry_at within the original approval expiry. Present one approval for the complete requested change set within this platform. Show account and target names, operation, before/after values, warnings and expiry. Keep approval refs, draft IDs, digests, tokens and protocol JSON in tool traffic, not normal chat. Ask for one confirmation of the whole displayed plan. Report each completed, submitted, waiting, failed or uncertain item accurately. A submitted background task is not a verified provider change. Never replay an uncertain write or retry a host safety denial. A waiting_quota plan retains its confirmation only until its original expiry; resume the exact plan after retry_at without asking for another confirmation. Changed or expired plans require review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approval_ref`	Yes
`expected_changes`	Yes
`connection_context`	No
`expected_plan_digest`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / connection_context
```
Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
AddedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only give the safe/unsafe profile (destructive, openWorld); the description goes far beyond it with sequential-not-atomic execution, stop-on-failure, per-item receipts, spend impact, idempotent repeat behavior, retry_at resume semantics within expiry, and the caveat that a submitted background task is not a verified provider change.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and identity, then the constraints. It is long because the tool is high-risk, but several sentences drift into UI/approval-presentation policy ('Show account and target names, operation, before/after values...') that could be trimmed without losing invocation guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates with per-item receipt reporting, failure/uncertain states, and retry behavior. Given a destructive, open-world executor this is largely sufficient, though the return shape and connection_context usage remain unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does add real meaning for expected_changes ('the exact expected_changes returned by prepare ... the server rejects any mismatch') and expected_plan_digest, but says nothing about approval_ref beyond naming it and never mentions connection_context.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (execute the stored mixed advertising plan) and pins identity to approval_ref and expected_plan_digest. It is clearly distinguishable from approval_plan_prepare, approval_plan_get and approval_plan_deny, which the sibling list shows are the near-miss alternatives.

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?

Specifies the precondition (explicit user approval of every displayed item), the required inputs from prepare, and the failure condition (server rejects mismatches). It also spells out when to resume versus re-review ('changed or expired plans require review').

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

All AdsAgent — TikTok Ads MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?