Tencent Ad MCP Server

async_report_files_get

Get the download URL for an asynchronous report file using the task ID and account ID.

Instructions

下载异步报表文件 (Get async report file download URL)

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>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "async_report_files_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	异步报表任务ID
`account_id`	Yes	广告主账户ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It hints at returning a download URL but does not clarify if the file is directly downloaded, whether multiple calls are safe, or any idempotency implications.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose but could benefit from a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and sibling tools that may overlap, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value format, prerequisites, or how this differs from similar report tools.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions in Chinese). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the function. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('download async report file' and 'Get async report file download URL'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like async_reports_get or async_reports_add, which may also relate to reports.

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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the report must be completed). The description lacks context for proper utilization.

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