Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AdsMCP

AdsMCP

by skynes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ads_platform_guide

Explains which advertising platform fits a given audience and acquisition goal before you configure its MCP module.

Instructions

Explain what audience and acquisition scenario each advertising platform fits before configuring its MCP module.

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_platform_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNo
providerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 behavioral burden. 'Explain' weakly implies a read-only informational operation, but the description does not state that it makes no changes, what kind of content is returned, or whether it depends on external module configuration.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrasing is slightly contorted ('what audience and acquisition scenario each advertising platform fits'), but it is not verbose.

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 output schema, no annotations, and two completely undocumented parameters, the description should explain what guidance is returned and how `goal`/`provider` shape it. It leaves both the return content and parameter behavior unspecified.

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 never mentions the two parameters `goal` and `provider`. At best, 'each advertising platform' and 'audience and acquisition scenario' loosely hint at provider and goal, but there is no explanation of whether they filter, focus, or are optional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Explain') and object ('what audience and acquisition scenario each advertising platform fits'), so the broad intent is inferable. However, it never states that the tool returns guidance/mapping content, nor does it name the platforms or clarify how this differs from sibling planning tools such as ads_module_plan or ads_integration_plan.

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 only usage hint is the trailing phrase 'before configuring its MCP module,' which implies sequencing but not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus ads_module_tools, ads_module_plan, or ads_network_platform_list.

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