用于与 Kayzen Analytics API 交互的模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现。该软件包使 AI 模型能够通过标准化接口访问和分析 Kayzen 广告活动数据。
自动身份验证：内置令牌管理，具有自动刷新机制
报告管理：轻松访问 Kayzen 分析报告
错误处理：API 交互的全面错误处理
TypeScript 支持：具有类型定义的完整 TypeScript 实现
基于环境的配置：使用环境变量进行简单设置
Related MCP server: Amazon Ads API MCP SDK
npm install @feedmob-ai/kayzen-mcp使用您的 Kayzen 凭证创建一个.env文件：
KAYZEN_USERNAME=your_username
KAYZEN_PASSWORD=your_password
KAYZEN_BASIC_AUTH=your_basic_auth_token
KAYZEN_BASE_URL=https://api.kayzen.io/v1 # Optional, defaults to this valueimport { KayzenMCPServer } from '@feedmob-ai/kayzen-mcp';
const server = new KayzenMCPServer();
server.start();list_reports列出 Kayzen Analytics 的所有可用报告。
输入：无
返回：包含以下内容的报告对象数组：
id ：报告标识符
name ：报告名称
type ：报告类型
const reports = await server.tools.list_reports();get_report_results检索特定报告的结果。
输入：
report_id （字符串，必需）：要获取的报告的 ID
start_date （字符串，可选）：YYYY-MM-DD 格式的开始日期
end_date （字符串，可选）：结束日期，格式为 YYYY-MM-DD
返回：报告数据和元数据
const results = await server.tools.get_report_results({
report_id: 'report_id',
start_date: '2024-01-01', // optional
end_date: '2024-01-31' // optional
});analyze_report_results （提示）分析报告结果并提供见解。
输入：
report_id （字符串）：要分析的报告的 ID
分析包括：
性能指标
主要趋势
需要优化的领域
不寻常的模式或异常
要将其与 Claude Desktop 一起使用，请将以下内容添加到您的claude_desktop_config.json中：
{
"mcpServers": {
"github": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@feedmob-ai/kayzen-mcp"
],
"env": {
"KAYZEN_USERNAME": "username",
"KAYZEN_PASSWORD": "pasword",
"KAYZEN_BASIC_AUTH": "auth token"
}
}
}
}Node.js（v16 或更高版本）
npm（v7 或更高版本）
Kayzen API 凭证
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the project
npm run build
# Start the server
npm start
# Development mode with hot-reload
npm run devkayzen-mcp/
├── src/
│ ├── server.ts # MCP server implementation
│ └── kayzen-client.ts # Kayzen API client
├── dist/ # Compiled JavaScript
└── package.json # Project configuration主要依赖项：
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk : ^1.7.0
axios ：^1.8.3
dotenv ：^16.4.7
zod ：^3.24.2
服务器处理各种错误情况：
身份验证失败
无效的 API 请求
网络问题
令牌过期和刷新
参数无效
MIT 许可证
FeedMob
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | End date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| report_id | Yes | ID of the report to fetch results for | |
| start_date | No | Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0get_report_resultslist_reportsScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'get_report_results' appears to retrieve specific report data, while 'list_reports' enumerates available reports. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on whether it needs to list reports or fetch results from a particular report.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern ('get_report_results' and 'list_reports'), using snake_case throughout. The verbs 'get' and 'list' are standard and predictable, making the tool names easy to understand and use without confusion.
With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for an analytics domain, which typically involves operations like creating, updating, filtering, or deleting reports. This minimal set may force agents to work around gaps, such as being unable to generate new reports or modify existing ones, limiting functionality.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for analytics: it allows listing and retrieving reports but lacks essential operations like creating, updating, deleting, or filtering reports. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common analytics tasks beyond basic read-only access.
Access Google & Meta Ads data via AI. Analyse campaign performance in seconds.
Conversational access to advertising performance data, creative analysis, and campaign insights
Conversational access to advertising performance data, creative analysis, and campaign insights
Marketing intelligence API for AI agents. Real campaign data, not LLM guesses.
