Tencent Ad MCP Server

adgroups_update_configured_status

Update a Tencent ad group's configured status to enable or pause delivery, using account ID, ad group ID, and status parameter.

Instructions

更新广告组状态 (Update ad group status: enable/pause)

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": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "adgroup_id": "<adgroup_id>",
      "configured_status": "<configured_status>"
    },
    "name": "adgroups_update_configured_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account_id`	Yes	广告主账户ID
`adgroup_id`	Yes	广告组ID
`configured_status`	Yes	状态：AD_STATUS_NORMAL / AD_STATUS_SUSPEND

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the mutation action but does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. More detail would be beneficial for safe invocation.

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 description is very concise: one sentence with a parenthetical note. It is efficient and to the point, though it could arguably include more context without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with only three required parameters, the description is adequate. It states the purpose and the allowed status values. However, since there is no output schema or annotations, a bit more detail on effects would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond rephrasing. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific verb 'update' and resource 'ad group status', and provides the valid statuses in parentheses (enable/pause). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'adgroups_update' which may update other fields, and 'adgroups_update_daily_budget' etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of prerequisites, nor when not to use it. Given that 'adgroups_update' is a sibling, the description does not clarify if that tool could also change status.

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