Tencent Ad MCP Server

images_add

Upload image assets to Tencent Ads using a URL or base64 encoded data. Specify account ID, upload type, and image signature.

Instructions

上传图片素材 (Upload image via URL or base64)

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>",
      "upload_type": "<upload_type>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "images_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`image_url`	No	图片URL（upload_type=UPLOAD_TYPE_URL 时）
`signature`	Yes	图片签名 (MD5)
`account_id`	Yes	广告主账户ID
`description`	No	图片描述
`upload_type`	Yes	上传方式: UPLOAD_TYPE_FILE / UPLOAD_TYPE_URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose that upload_type must be one of two enums, that a signature (MD5) is required, or the upload result (e.g., returns image ID). Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one phrase), which is concise, but lacks structure and front-loading of key information. Every sentence earns its place, but could be improved.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description omits important context like how to obtain the signature or what happens after upload. Incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. However, the description mentions 'base64' which is not in the schema, adding confusion. It adds little value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Upload image via URL or base64', which identifies the action and resource. However, the input schema does not include a base64 parameter, causing minor inconsistency. It is distinct from sibling tools like images_get, images_delete.

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., images_update for modifications). No prerequisites or usage context provided beyond the upload method.

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