Advertising-Analysis

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation1/5
The tool set has severe ambiguity, with multiple tools appearing to serve identical or overlapping purposes. For example, 'ac' and 'analyze_code' likely refer to the same action, and 'tip' and 'developer_tip' are indistinguishable in function. This makes it nearly impossible for an agent to reliably select the correct tool without additional context.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent and chaotic. There is a mix of abbreviated names like 'ac' and 'gc' with full names like 'analyze_code' and 'get_completion', and no discernible pattern in verb usage or structure. This lack of consistency reduces predictability and increases cognitive load for agents.
Tool Count3/5
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable and not excessive, but it feels borderline due to the apparent redundancy and lack of clear scope. The server's purpose is ambiguous from the tool names, making it hard to assess if this number is optimal, but it doesn't fall into extreme categories like having only 1 or over 25 tools.
Completeness1/5
The tool surface is severely incomplete for an 'Advertising-Analysis' domain. There are no tools for core advertising functions such as ad creation, campaign management, performance metrics, or audience targeting. The tools present seem focused on code analysis and developer assistance, which is a significant mismatch and leaves major gaps for agent workflows.
Average 1.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
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. The description 'ac' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior, such as whether it performs read/write operations, requires authentication, has side effects, or handles errors. It fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely brief, this brevity results from under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single word 'ac' fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient and poorly structured for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context to understand the tool's function, usage, or behavior, making it insufficient for effective agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description 'ac' adds no information about the single required parameter 'code'. It does not explain what 'code' represents, its format, or its purpose, leaving the parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to make an informed decision among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but completely fails to deliver. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what format the analysis output takes, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is inadequate for a tool with unknown behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just the tool name repeated, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single word doesn't earn its place by providing any useful information. True conciseness would balance brevity with sufficient information content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is woefully inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect as output. This fails to meet even basic completeness requirements for a functional tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the single 'code' parameter. The tool description adds absolutely no information about what the 'code' parameter should contain, its expected format, constraints, or examples. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented and unusable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (ac, developer_tip, gc, get_completion, tip). There's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. This leaves the agent with no information to make informed tool selection decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what side effects exist, or what the response format might be.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with a single word, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its conciseness is detrimental rather than beneficial.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no meaningful information about the tool's purpose, behavior, or usage, leaving the agent unable to effectively select or invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'topic', and the description provides no information about what this parameter represents, its expected format, or how it influences the tool's behavior. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. The description 'gc' reveals nothing about whether this is a read/write operation, its effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or response format. It fails to provide any 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely brief, this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. The single word 'gc' doesn't provide enough information to be useful, so it doesn't earn a high score for efficiency. Every sentence (or word) should earn its place, and this doesn't.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter with no schema documentation, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools with similar-sounding names, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect, making it insufficient for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'prompt' is undocumented in the schema. The description 'gc' adds no information about what the 'prompt' parameter is for, its format, or semantics, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_completion' or 'analyze_code'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions might be needed, what side effects exist, or what the response format might be. This is completely inadequate for a tool with unknown behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just the tool name, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single word doesn't earn its place by providing any useful information, making it ineffective despite its minimal length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is completely inadequate for a tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema. The description provides no information about purpose, behavior, parameters, or usage context. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'analyze_code' and 'developer_tip', this description fails to provide even basic contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single 'prompt' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information whatsoever - no explanation of what the prompt should contain, its format, or its purpose. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ac', 'gc', or 'tip', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what the output looks like, or any other behavioral traits. The single-word description offers zero transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with a single word, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is so minimal that it fails to communicate any useful information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding despite its short length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter with no schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect, failing to compensate for the lack of structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'topic' is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description 'tip' adds no information about what this parameter means, its expected format, or how it influences the tool's behavior, leaving the agent with no guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'developer_tip' that might serve similar purposes, but the description offers no context, exclusions, or comparisons to help the agent make an informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![1777316659317763 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659317763/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659317763)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![1777316659317763 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659317763/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659317763)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659317763'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server