set_rtb_feed_stateStart or pause an RTB demand feed to control bidding; changes apply in about 10 seconds and notify account managers.
Start (active) or pause (paused) an RTB demand feed; bidding changes within ~10 seconds. Account managers are notified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Feed ID (hex `id` or numeric `id_numeric`) | |
| state | Yes | ||
| format | Yes | Ad format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the description adds genuinely new context: bidding changes propagate within ~10 seconds and account managers are notified. That latency and human-notification side effect are exactly what an agent needs before flipping a live feed off.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence: action, resource, then the state mapping, then the two consequences. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the propagation delay, the side-effect notification, and the state mapping. An agent has enough to call it correctly and anticipate the effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% and the id/format fields are already documented, but the description supplies the missing semantics for `state` by equating active with start and paused with pause. That closes the main gap for a required enum parameter with no schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb pair (start/pause) and resource (RTB demand feed), and maps each enum value to its effect. It is clearly a state mutation, distinguishable from read siblings like list_rtb_feeds and get_rtb_feed, though it never names an alternative outright.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The scope (RTB feeds, not other entities) is implied by the wording, and the analogous set_buy_order_state sibling is not referenced to route the agent. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus pausing bids another way, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.