Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

distribution

by tech.distribution
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Resolve an audience

resolve_audience
Read-onlyIdempotent

No account needed for a profile you describe (product, audience, geography; at least a product or an audience): the audience segments it matches and the coverage per channel, the same check a campaign gets when it starts. Counts only, never a creator's identity. The fit for a campaign of yours (intent_id) needs an account.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "resolve_audience"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
productNoWhat is being promoted.
audienceNoWho it is for, in your words.
geographyNoWhere the audience is, or worldwide.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / intent_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "One of your campaigns. Leave out to describe a profile instead.",
-  "format": "uuid",
-  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: no account is needed for a described profile, counts never reveal creator identity, and the result mirrors the check a campaign gets at start. The only weakness is the confusing reference to intent_id, which is not in the schema.

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 first two sentences front-load the no-account condition and privacy/result scope, which is useful. The third sentence about intent_id is disconnected from the actual input schema and makes the description harder to parse, while the overall construction is somewhat dense and run-on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining the return shape: audience segments, channel coverage, counts only. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the undefined intent_id reference and the lack of required parameters in the schema leave a gap an agent must navigate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important constraint that at least a product or an audience is required, but it also refers to an intent_id parameter that does not exist in the schema, which creates ambiguity rather than useful parameter guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific outcome: a described profile is resolved into matching audience segments and per-channel coverage, with counts only and no creator identity. It distinguishes the no-account profile path from the account-required campaign-fit path, but does not compare itself to named sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives the key usage constraint that at least a product or an audience is needed, and distinguishes anonymous profile resolution from account-required campaign fit. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All distribution toolsInspect
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