Skip to main content
Glama
X Ads MCP Server

X Ads MCP Server

Get FAQ

get_faq
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve answers to questions about the hosted X Ads MCP server, including pricing, safety, API keys, multiple ad accounts, and supported AI apps. Returns Markdown with one heading per question.

Instructions

Get the answers to common questions about the hosted X Ads MCP server by AdKit: price, safety and approvals, API keys, several ad accounts and supported AI apps. Use this before answering such a question from memory. Returns Markdown, one heading per question.

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": "get_faq"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's contribution is the return shape ("Returns Markdown, one heading per question"), which is useful since no output schema exists, but it discloses nothing further about content currency or coverage limits.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste: purpose and covered topics first, the usage instruction second, the return format last. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-argument lookup tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it answers, when to prefer it over memory, and the format of the result. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply. Baseline 4 applies; the description cannot add or omit parameter semantics here.

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 specific verb+resource ("Get the answers to common questions about the hosted X Ads MCP server") plus an enumerated topic list — price, safety/approvals, API keys, multiple ad accounts, supported AI apps. It is clearly distinct from get_example_prompts and list_ad_platforms, though the boundary with get_setup_guide is left implicit.

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?

"Use this before answering such a question from memory" gives a concrete trigger condition for calling the tool rather than guessing. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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