flayr

Approve (and activate) a campaign

ads_campaign_approve

[writes · ads:manage scope] Approves a proposed ad campaign. With activate: true it also switches it on (needs ads:spend too), through the normal activation checks, when its daily budget is within the owner's agent activation ceiling. Inside the owner's agent ceiling it is applied at once; above it the result is approval_requested: tell the user the owner has an approval request in Ads > Agent activity, and repeat the same call once they approve. Pass agentName and reason; both are shown to the owner. Confirm with the user before activating. (Wraps POST /api/v2/ads/campaigns/{id}/approve.)

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "agentName": "<agentName>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "ads_campaign_approve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`reason`	Yes	Why the agent is doing this. Shown to the owner and kept in the audit trail.
`brandId`	No	A brand id (GET /api/v2/brands) or "personal"; default: the key owner's active brand.
`activate`	No	Also switch it on. Needs ads:spend as well.
`agentName`	Yes	Which agent is acting. Shown to the owner in Ads > Agent activity.
`idempotencyKey`	No	Optional; repeats with the same key do not re-run the activation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses required scopes (ads:manage, extra ads:spend for activation), that activation runs 'the normal activation checks' and is bounded by the owner's agent activation ceiling, the exact success-vs-`approval_requested` split by budget, and that agentName/reason are surfaced to the owner and kept for audit. The destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=false annotations are consistent with this.

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-loads the write indicator and scope, then the operation, then the conditional outcome, then the user-confirmation rule — a sensible order with no filler. The middle sentence is long and clause-stacked ('through the normal activation checks, when its daily budget is within...'), which slightly hurts parseability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: permission prerequisites, the two possible outcomes, how to interpret `approval_requested`, and the retry path. The complexity (conditional activation, owner approval gating) is fully accounted for.

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 83%, so the schema already explains id, reason, brandId, activate, agentName and idempotencyKey. The description mostly restates that agentName and reason are shown to the owner and that activate needs ads:spend, both of which the schema params already say; it adds no new guidance on brandId or idempotencyKey syntax or when to supply them.

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 specific verb and resource ('Approves a proposed ad campaign') and immediately clarifies the optional second effect ('With activate: true it also switches it on'), which separates it from siblings like ads_campaign_pause or decide_approval. An agent can identify the operation 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit operating conditions: confirm with the user before activating, and on an `approval_requested` result tell the user about the pending request in Ads > Agent activity and repeat the same call after approval. It never names a sibling alternative (e.g. what to use if the campaign should be rejected or paused), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

All flayr 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?