A
licenseA
qualityF
maintenanceMCP server for Google AdSense management. Create ad units, generate framework-specific ad code, manage earnings reports, and automate ads.txt — all from your AI assistant.
12
18
MIT
Ezoic Setup Assistant
by com.ezoic
Server Details
Ezoic ads implementation assistant: integration docs, SDKs, and working, copyable setup code.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
4 toolsaskAInspect
Ask the agent. Full pipeline (schema, queries, analysis). Sync within deadline_seconds; else {status:pending,job_id} — poll request_status/read_response. Pass a stable thread id (UUID) on every call for conversation context.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Optional role override; defaults to admin for MCP callers. | |
| agent | No | Bundle name. Inferred from the Host header when missing. | |
| thread | No | Persistent conversation id. Either `thread` or the legacy `thread_id` alias must be set. | |
| message | No | User prompt for the agent. Either `message` or the legacy `question` alias must be set. | |
| question | No | Legacy apples-compat alias for `message`. Ignored when `message` is set. | |
| thread_id | No | Legacy apples-compat alias for `thread`. Ignored when `thread` is set. | |
| deadline_seconds | No | Synchronous wait budget. Default 240. |
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations lack behavioral details (only readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). Description adds critical behavioral traits: sync/async pipeline, timeout handling, and return format {status:pending, job_id}. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: define tool, explain sync/async, emphasize thread requirement. No redundant or verbose phrasing.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers overall behavior, sync/async, and threading. Could briefly describe what 'Full pipeline' entails, but the essential context for using the tool is present. Minor gap in explaining default behavior if deadline_seconds not set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline 3. Description adds some context like 'Pass a stable thread id (UUID)' but largely repeats schema descriptions (e.g., role override, thread alias). Does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.
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?
Description starts with 'Ask the agent' which clearly states the action and resource. It elaborates with 'Full pipeline (schema, queries, analysis)' and differentiates from sibling tools (help, read_response, request_status) by mentioning sync/async behavior and polling mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use synchronous vs asynchronous mode based on deadline_seconds, and instructs to poll request_status/read_response for pending jobs. Also specifies to pass a stable thread id for conversation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
helpARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Short orientation text for apples MCP callers.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it provides 'orientation text.' No contradictions, but no additional disclosure.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, high annotation coverage), the description is functionally complete but lacks details on the content or format of the orientation text, leaving the agent somewhat uninformed.
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 and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's output (orientation text), which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the tool provides 'short orientation text for apples MCP callers,' specifying the verb ('provide orientation') and resource ('text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (ask, read_response, request_status) by implying general help rather than specific actions.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_responseARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Stream a chunk of a pending ask() job's output.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id returned by a prior ask() call. | |
| offset | No | Byte offset to start reading from. 0 for the beginning. |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context that it streams chunks of pending jobs, but doesn't detail behaviors like error handling or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence, directly front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words.
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 simple read tool with good annotations and schema, the description is nearly complete. Could mention that offset is optional, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so both parameters are fully described in the schema. Description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool streams a chunk of output from a pending ask() job, specifying the action (stream), resource (output of pending job), and distinguishing from sibling tools ask and request_status.
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?
Description implies usage after ask() to read output, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor situations to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_statusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check the status of a pending ask() job.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id returned by a prior ask() call that went async. |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. Description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'check status', which is consistent but not additive.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
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 simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. Could optionally mention polling behavior or possible statuses, but not required.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with description. Description adds context that job_id comes from a prior async ask() call, which clarifies the parameter's origin beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'check' and resource 'status of a pending ask() job', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ask' (creates jobs) and 'read_response' (retrieves final results).
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?
Description implies usage after an async ask() call but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_response' for final results. No usage exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
- First observed
ask - First observed
help - First observed
read_response - First observed
request_status
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Website monetization for AI agents: apply, integrate ads, reporting, and payouts — all over MCP.
AdCritter ads platform: docs, API reference, app scaffolding, and white-label integration.
Helps AI coding agents integrate MetaMask Embedded Wallets (Web3Auth) SDKs.
Build, edit and sync Google, Microsoft, Reddit and Meta ad campaigns from your assistant.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to connect to eonik and access brand assets, competitor research, and ad performance facts, while drafting creative briefs and scene breakdowns without spending or making changes.4321091MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLets coding agents set up Clarvivo analytics directly by detecting the app framework, creating or reusing the appropriate project, returning the exact snippet, and verifying real traffic.110MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceGoogle AdSense for AI agents, enabling MCP server monetization by serving privacy-respecting contextual ads and earning 70% revenue share on clicks.492MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: ask initiates a query job, help provides orientation, read_response streams job output, and request_status checks job progress. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: single verbs (ask, help) and verb_noun combinations (read_response, request_status), all lowercase with underscores for multi-word names.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools covering the core workflow of asking questions and retrieving responses asynchronously, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the expected lifecycle: initiate a job (ask), check its status (request_status), and retrieve the result (read_response), plus help. No obvious gaps given the domain.