Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AdsMCP

AdsMCP

by skynes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ads_automation_run

Evaluate advertising automation rules with a dry run by default; set execute=true to apply actions for a campaign or date range.

Instructions

Evaluate automation rules. This is dry-run unless execute=true is explicitly set.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "ads_automation_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
fromYes
executeNo
campaign_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the dry-run default and the explicit execute=true gate, which is meaningful safety context. But it does not describe what happens when execution occurs, what rules are affected, or any permission or recovery 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 two short sentences with no wasted wording, and the dry-run behavior is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's four parameters and lack of annotations.

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?

For a four-parameter automation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It omits what from/to and campaign_id mean and does not explain the effects of execute=true beyond calling it non-dry-run.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only clarifies the meaning of execute (dry-run vs execution) and leaves the required from/to parameters and campaign_id completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ("Evaluate") and resource ("automation rules"), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling rule-management tools such as ads_automation_rule_create or ads_automation_rule_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives important usage context for the execute flag: dry-run unless execute=true is explicitly set. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ads_automation_rule_list or rule_create, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools