Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ads MCP for Snapchat

Ads MCP for Snapchat

by Usame794
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

snap_create_dynamic_template

Create a dynamic template for Snapchat catalog ads by selecting a layout and up to two product text fields; preview changes first, then apply them with confirmation.

Instructions

Create a dynamic template: the layout and the (up to two) text fields shown with each product in catalog ads. Layout: AUTOMATIC, FILL_WIDTH, FILL_HEIGHT, FIT, HEADER, TILT. Text fields: title, price, descriptionTruncated, salePrice, availability, brand, condition, ageGroup, color, gender, productType, size, customLabel_0, customLabel_1, customLabel_2, customLabel_3, customLabel_4. Delivers nothing by itself. Previews 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "snap_create_dynamic_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
layoutNoAUTOMATIC
confirmNofalse = preview only (nothing sent). true = apply; needs approval_token from the preview.
text_fieldsNo
approval_tokenNoThe approval_token returned by the preview of this exact request. Required with confirm=true.
background_colorNoHex colour such as #FFFFFF

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: a two-phase gated write with an approval_token derived from the preview of the exact request, and the fact that a preview creates nothing. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the preview response contains beyond the token.

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 most important constraint, the preview/confirm gating, is placed at the end but stated in one dense, unambiguous sentence, and the opening sentence front-loads the scope. The long inline enum lists duplicate the schema and add length, but they are compact enough not to bury the key instructions.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the risky parts: that the call is gated, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and requires a token to apply. It is incomplete about the name and background_color parameters and about what the preview returns, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 50%, with only confirm and approval_token documented in the schema, so the description carries real burden. It adds meaning for layout and text_fields (the two-field cap and the allowed values), but largely by restating enums already in the schema, and it says nothing about name or background_color, which are undocumented in both places.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Create a dynamic template') and immediately qualifies the resource as 'the layout and the (up to two) text fields shown with each product in catalog ads', so an agent knows this is a catalog-ads creative configuration object rather than a generic template. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings such as snap_create_creative or snap_create_collection_creative, which keeps it from 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 an explicit operational protocol: preview by default, then 'repeat the same arguments with confirm=true and that approval_token' to apply, including the warning that it 'delivers nothing by itself'. That is a strong when/how-to-use sequence, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus other creative-creation siblings.

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