Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AdsMCP

AdsMCP

by skynes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ads_campaign_analytics

Calculate spend, funnel, and efficiency KPIs for a single campaign or all campaigns to compare performance and guide budget decisions.

Instructions

Calculate spend, funnel and efficiency KPIs for one or all campaigns.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ads_campaign_analytics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
sourceNo
project_idNo
campaign_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, how calculations are performed, whether results are cached, or what the output looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with five undocumented parameters and no annotations, it is arguably too terse rather than optimally concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent would not know how to properly set the date range, source, or project parameters, nor what to expect from the return value.

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%, and the description only vaguely covers campaign scope ('one or all campaigns') and KPI types. It does not explain the critical parameters from, to, source, or project_id, leaving most of the five parameters undocumented.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('spend, funnel and efficiency KPIs') with scope ('one or all campaigns'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from analytics/report siblings such as ads_project_analytics, ads_campaign_timeseries, or ads_attribution_report.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling analytics and reporting tools. It implies that it is for campaign KPI calculation, but there are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned.

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