Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AdsMCP

AdsMCP

by skynes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ads_clickru_profiles_status

Lists locally stored Click.ru advertiser profiles with masked INNs and shows the active profile, without ever returning API tokens.

Instructions

Show locally stored Click.ru advertiser profiles with masked INNs and the active profile. Never returns API tokens.

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_clickru_profiles_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and usefully discloses that data is locally stored, INNs are masked, the active profile is included, and API tokens are never returned. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but 'Show' and the token exclusion provide strong behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the security-relevant constraint. No unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently explains the key return content and privacy boundary. It could be slightly richer about response structure, but it is complete enough 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently minimal and the 100% schema coverage baseline applies. The description does not need to explain parameter formats.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('locally stored Click.ru advertiser profiles'), and clarifies the returned fields ('masked INNs and the active profile'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling Click.ru tools such as campaign draft status tools.

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 phrasing implies this is the status/list-view tool for locally stored Click.ru profiles, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No direct sibling alternative is named.

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