Skip to main content
Glama
Ads MCP for Snapchat

Ads MCP for Snapchat

by Usame794

snap_ad_preview

Read-only

Preview how a Snapchat ad appears on a phone before enabling it using an ad ID or creative ID; get a no-login preview link and a scannable Snapcode.

Instructions

A link to see how an ad looks on a phone, before turning it on (read-only). Give ad_id or creative_id. The link works without login for 90 days, plus a Snapcode image to scan with Snapchat (7 days).

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": "snap_ad_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ad_idNo
creative_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the link is usable without login for 90 days and a Snapcode image is returned with a 7-day life. It doesn't say what happens if both identifiers are supplied or if neither is, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences, the purpose and read-only nature front-loaded, then the identifier choice, then the expiry facts. No filler; only the slightly indirect "A link to see how" wording could be tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names what comes back (a link plus a Snapcode image) and how long each artifact lasts. For a two-parameter read-only tool this is close to complete; only the identifier edge cases are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is required, so the description carries the burden: "Give ad_id or creative_id" supplies the one-of selection semantics that the flat schema does not encode. It still doesn't define the ID formats or resolve the both-supplied case.

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?

"A link to see how an ad looks on a phone, before turning it on" names the concrete output (a preview link) and the resource (an ad/creative), which is easy to separate from the create/clone/schedule siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming when a sibling such as snap_create_creative or snap_competitor_ads is the better fit.

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?

"before turning it on" gives a clear timing context for using this tool, and "Give ad_id or creative_id" tells the agent how to invoke it. No explicit when-not-to-use case or named alternative is provided, so it sits at a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools