Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ads MCP for Snapchat

Ads MCP for Snapchat

by Usame794
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

snap_claim_ad_code

Claim a creator's single-use ad code into the ad account with a preview-first flow: review the request, then confirm with an approval token to apply the change.

Instructions

Claim a creator's ad code (adcode_) into the ad account. ONE-WAY: the code is single-use and cannot be unclaimed. Previews (format check only, nothing sent) unless confirm=true. Two steps: confirm=false returns a preview and an approval_token; to apply, repeat the same arguments with confirm=true and that approval_token.

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": {
      "ad_code": "<ad_code>"
    },
    "name": "snap_claim_ad_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ad_codeYes
confirmNofalse = preview only (nothing sent). true = apply; needs approval_token from the preview.
profile_idNoBrand profile id; defaults to SNAP_BRAND_PROFILE_ID
approval_tokenNoThe approval_token returned by the preview of this exact request. Required with confirm=true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses two traits the structured fields do not: the claim is ONE-WAY and the code is single-use and cannot be unclaimed, plus that previews perform only a format check with nothing sent. The two-step preview/approval_token handshake is also spelled out, which is exactly the kind of mutating-flow context an agent needs and annotations cannot convey. The irreversibility sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false but does not contradict it, since that hint refers to data destruction rather than one-way state change.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the irreversibility warning, the preview default, and the two-step apply procedure. The irreversibility constraint is front-loaded and the procedural detail follows in execution order.

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?

For a mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical risks (irreversibility, single-use code) and the full confirm/approval workflow. It does not describe what the preview returns beyond an approval_token, nor what the applied result looks like, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents confirm, profile_id, and approval_token. The description still adds value by restating the confirm semantics in workflow terms ('repeat the same arguments with confirm=true and that approval_token'), which clarifies that the token must match the exact request. It says nothing about profile_id's resolution/default, leaving that to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Claim a creator's ad code (adcode_<uuid>) into the ad account', and defines the code's format, so an agent knows exactly what object is acted on. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. snap_ad_preview or snap_clone_ad) to differentiate itself from comparable tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It gives explicit operating instructions: confirm=false previews without sending, confirm=true applies and requires the approval_token from that preview. There is no exclusion guidance about when another tool (such as a generic preview tool) would be preferable, but the when-to-use path for this tool itself is unambiguous.

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