Tencent Ad MCP Server

async_reports_add

Create an async report task for Tencent Ads to aggregate advertising data by specified fields, levels, and date ranges for later retrieval.

Instructions

创建异步报表任务 (Create async report task)

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>",
      "level": "<level>",
      "date_range": "<date_range>",
      "group_by": "<group_by>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "async_reports_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`level`	Yes	报表层级
`fields`	Yes	返回字段
`group_by`	Yes	分组字段
`filtering`	No
`task_name`	No	任务名称
`account_id`	Yes	广告主账户ID
`date_range`	Yes

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'create async report task'. It does not disclose that the task is asynchronous, what the response contains, or any constraints like rate limits or idempotency.

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 short (one sentence in two languages), and no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or additional context without being verbose.

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 tool has 7 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description should explain the asynchronous nature, expected return values (e.g., task ID), and how to check completion. It omits all of this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 71% schema description coverage, the descriptions in the schema already cover most parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify formatting or usage of complex parameters like filtering or date_range.

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 action 'Create async report task' (创建异步报表任务) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like async_reports_get and async_report_files_get.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., async_reports_get, daily_reports_get). The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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