Kakao Keyword Ads MCP

by PlatAid

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_creative

Read-only

Retrieve detailed information of a single ad creative by its ID. Optionally specify an ad account or business token.

Instructions

단일 소재 상세 (GET /creatives/basic/{id}).

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": {
      "creative_id": "<creative_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_creative"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`creative_id`	Yes	creativeId
`ad_account_id`	No	대상 광고계정 ID (미지정 시 use_account 세션 사용)
`business_token`	No	비즈니스 토큰 (미지정 시 login 세션 사용). override용

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the HTTP method (GET), reinforcing the read-only nature. However, no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth, error handling, rate limits) is provided beyond the annotations.

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 concise with a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient, though could potentially include more detail without being verbose.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool has only 3 parameters with high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values (covered by output schema) but lacks usage context and error handling notes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the purpose: retrieving a single creative's details, with the specific HTTP method and endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like list_creatives (which lists multiple) and get_creative_performance (performance data).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and sibling context imply single-item retrieval, but the description does not state prerequisites or when to choose this over list_creatives.

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