Kakao Moment MCP

by jun7680

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: account info, balance, period performance, today's status, listing campaigns, ad groups, and creatives. No two tools overlap in functionality; even the performance tools are separated by time scope.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern with 'get_' for singular queries and 'list_' for multiple items. The naming is predictable and intuitive.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for querying Kakao Moment advertising data. Each tool addresses a key aspect, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is entirely read-only—it provides queries for info, balance, performance, and listings, but lacks any create, update, or delete operations for campaigns, ad groups, or creatives. This limits its utility for full campaign management.
Average 4.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- Last stable release on May 19, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral aspects. It states the outputs but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or data freshness. The description is functional but lacks depth in disclosing non-obvious behaviors.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two lines summarizing the core value followed by a compact list of example queries. Every sentence and example is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and typical questions. It does not specify output format or units, but for a simple query tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no additional documentation is needed. According to guidance, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is required.
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 tool provides three specific outputs: bizmoney balance, recent 7-day consumption trend, and remaining days estimate based on current pace. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_performance_report or get_today_status, which focus on different aspects of ad account data.
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?
The description includes a list of example questions that map directly to common use cases, such as checking balance or estimating remaining days. While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, the examples provide strong contextual guidance for the AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions performance implications (with_details False when slow), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe. The description adds some behavioral context but misses the opportunity to fully assure agents about safety.
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 front-loaded with a purpose statement and structured with example queries and an Args section. It is concise overall, though the example list could be slightly trimmed. Every sentence adds value.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return fields (name, status, daily budget, type) and provides filtering and performance guidance. The sibling tools are distinct, so no cross-referencing is needed. The description is complete for its context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the status_filter values with concrete examples and defining the with_details boolean's effect and performance trade-off. This is far beyond what the schema provides.
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 starts with a clear Korean sentence stating the tool retrieves a full campaign list with specific fields (name, status, daily budget, type). The subsequent example queries reinforce the exact purpose. Although sibling tools are different, the description's clarity eliminates ambiguity.
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?
The description provides example queries and explains when to use the status_filter and with_details parameters, including advice on turning off with_details for performance. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, which would improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly suggests a read-only operation ('조회합니다') without mentioning side effects. For a simple parameterless tool, this is sufficient, though additional details like authentication or rate limits could improve transparency.
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?
The description is concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a list of example questions. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the kind of information retrieved (name, status, business info, etc.). It does not detail the return format, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate. Slightly higher could be achieved by explicitly stating it returns a single object.
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 input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage trivially). According to guidelines, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add param info since none exist.
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 tool retrieves Kakao Moment ad account info (name, status, business info, balance shortage) and provides example user queries. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_bizmoney (balance) or get_performance_report (performance).
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?
The description gives example questions (e.g., 'How is the ad account status?', 'Any balance shortage?') that directly indicate when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only query, but does not explicitly state whether it is destructive, required permissions, or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return values.
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 well-structured with a summary line, bulleted example questions, and a warning. It is concise but could be slightly trimmed; however, it remains efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the tool's return values (metrics listed) and usage context (questions and boundaries). It is complete for a simple status tool.
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?
There are no parameters; schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly does not add parameter info, which is appropriate given zero parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 that the tool returns today's ad account status with specific metrics (cumulative spend, hourly pace, etc.) and distinguishes itself from get_performance_report for past periods. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit example questions for when to use the tool and includes a warning with a direct reference to a sibling tool for past periods. This gives clear guidance on appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided; the description does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. It implies a safe query operation but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.
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 well-structured with bullet points and examples, but is relatively long. It could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers parameter details, usage context, and output metrics comprehensively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter with valid values, date formats, and optional breakdowns, including examples.
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 tool's purpose: generating performance reports by period with key metrics (impressions, clicks, cost, conversions, CTR, CPC, ROAS). It distinguishes from siblings like get_today_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage examples mapping natural language queries to parameter values, and specifies when not to use it (e.g., for real-time pace, get_today_status is more suitable).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses return fields (format, review status, preview, landing URL, title/description) and the effect of the with_details parameter. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but adds sufficient transparency for a read-like tool.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose and well-structured with bullet-point examples and parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized for two parameters, though slightly verbose with example questions.
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?
Given sibling tools and no output schema, the description covers query intent, return fields, and parameter usage. It lacks explicit mention of result format (e.g., list), but overall is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains adgroup_id as nearly required for filtering to a specific ad group, and with_details as enriching per-creative detail. This adds meaning beyond the schema types and defaults.
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 specifies the tool lists creatives of a specific ad group, detailing return fields (format, review status, preview, landing URL, title/description). It distinguishes from siblings like get_performance_report by stating separate use for performance metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit example questions for usage and warns that performance data should be retrieved via get_performance_report, offering a clear alternative. This shows when and when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that with_details=True (default) adds bid/budget/period details, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is idempotent or non-destructive, though the context strongly suggests it.
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 well-structured with a summary line, usage examples, a warning, and parameter explanations. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; no redundancy.
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?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage guidance adequately. It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., array of objects), but the with_details parameter implies the structure. Overall fairly complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: campaign_id is 'close to required' for filtering by campaign, and with_details (default true) reinforces details per ad group. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types and defaults.
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 it lists ad groups within a specific campaign with details like bid, daily budget, execution period, and device. It provides example questions that illustrate its purpose, and distinguishes from sibling list_campaigns by focusing on ad groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance is given with example questions (e.g., 'show ad groups of campaign X') and a clear warning: if only ad group ID is known, first use list_campaigns to find the campaign. This directly helps the agent decide when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kakao-moment-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jun7680/kakao-moment-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jun7680/kakao-moment-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kakao-moment-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jun7680/kakao-moment-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jun7680/kakao-moment-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jun7680/kakao-moment-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server