LeanrIQ

run creative chain (deprecated alias)

leanriq_run_creative_chain

Idempotent

run creative chain. Deprecated alias for run_creative_chain. Classification: writes to Studio, creates billable AI usage. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden. Mutation modes: validate_only, preview_only, execute. Partial failure policy: completed_items_not_rolled_back. The returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration. Use assistantSummary first when responding to the user. Never display raw JSON, data, or meta unless the user explicitly asks for raw JSON. Mention IDs only when useful for follow-up or debugging. Prefer concise, human language, highlight the most useful insight, and suggest the next best LeanrIQ action. If idempotencyKey is omitted on a mutation, the MCP layer derives a deterministic retry key from the tool and business arguments so an accidental identical replay cannot create duplicate work. For a mutation when more than one seat is authorised, seatId or seatName must be supplied on that exact tool call; a remembered or previously selected seat is not sufficient for a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`KPI`	No
`goal`	No
`tone`	No
`brand`	No
`force`	No
`offer`	No
`budget`	No
`seatId`	No
`channel`	No
`endDate`	No
`product`	No
`audience`	No
`buildAds`	No
`seatName`	No
`accountId`	No
`mustAvoid`	No
`objective`	No
`startDate`	No
`campaignId`	No
`creativeId`	No
`constraints`	No
`creativeIds`	No
`funnelStage`	No
`mustInclude`	No
`targetSizes`	No
`advertiserId`	No
`campaignName`	No
`deliverables`	No
`saveToStudio`	No
`idempotencyKey`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`assistantSummary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses rich behavioral traits beyond annotations: writes to Studio, creates billable AI usage, synchronous execution, forbidden task support, mutation modes, partial-failure policy (completed_items_not_rolled_back), idempotency key derivation, and seat-required-on-write rule. These details complement the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but long, with redundant deprecation info (both the title and description mention 'deprecated alias') and an extensive response-handling paragraph that could be tightened. It is structured with periods and categories, but not as concise as it could be.

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?

Operational behavior is thoroughly covered, but the core domain purpose is missing: what a creative chain is, what it produces, and how to select appropriate values for the 30 inputs. With no schema descriptions and minimal parameter guidance, the tool is hard to invoke correctly despite the detailed behavioral context.

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% across 30 optional parameters. The description only clarifies idempotencyKey and seatId/seatName semantics; all other parameters (KPI, goal, brand, audience, creativeIds, etc.) are left completely unexplained, forcing agents to guess at their meaning and relationships.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the tool's name ('run creative chain') and notes it's a deprecated alias, but never explains what a creative chain is or what it accomplishes. The classification 'writes to Studio' hints at write behavior, but the core domain purpose is absent, making this only marginally better than a tautology.

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 description explicitly names the canonical tool (run_creative_chain) as the non-deprecated alternative, which is a strong when-not signal. It also notes 'Task support: forbidden' as an exclusion. However, it provides no guidance on when a creative chain should be used versus other creative-building tools like build_ad or create_creative_brief.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All LeanrIQ tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is dominated by deprecated aliases (leanriq_build_ad, leanriq_create_brief, etc.) that duplicate canonical tools exactly, and multiple high-level builders (build_ad, build_campaign_creative_set, leanriq_campaign_builder, launch_creative_campaign) overlap in purpose. An agent would struggle to pick the intended tool without inspecting full descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Canonical tools follow a sensible verb_noun pattern (create_campaign, get_creative, list_flights), but the large number of 'leanriq_' prefixed aliases and special names like leanriq_campaign_builder create a mixed, inconsistent surface. The presence of both build_ad and leanriq_build_ad, or get_current_seat and leanriq_current_seat, breaks any predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

87 tools is an extreme number for any MCP server, even a broad ad-platform API. The sheer volume, including many duplicate aliases, far exceeds a well-scoped set and will overwhelm agents with unnecessary choices.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: CRUD for advertisers, campaigns, flights, creatives, versions, assets, plus trafficking, QA, preview, and publishing. Minor gaps exist, such as the missing canonical create_creative_strategy (only a deprecated alias references it) and no direct update_creative, but the domain is functionally complete.

Resources

Need Help?