LeanrIQ

run creative chain

run_creative_chain

Idempotent

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond the annotations: synchronous execution, partial failure policy (completed_items_not_rolled_back), idempotency key derivation, seat requirements for writes, and the internal nature of the returned JSON. These details align with the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and significantly enhance the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 uses concise, telegraphic sentences and front-loads the tool name. However, it includes substantial response-formatting instructions (e.g., 'Use assistantSummary first', 'Never display raw JSON') that are only tangentially related to tool selection and invocation, adding length without direct relevance to the tool's core operation.

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?

Despite an abundance of operational metadata, the description omits the core purpose of the tool, the meaning of its 30 parameters, and the differences between validate_only, preview_only, and execute modes. For a complex tool with a rich output schema, this description is insufficient for correct tool usage, even though it covers some edge-case behaviors.

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?

With 30 parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description provides no information about what any parameter means or how to use it. It does not mention KPI, goal, tone, or any other field, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to supply. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 begins with 'run creative chain,' which merely restates the tool name without defining what a creative chain is or what the tool actually accomplishes. The classification and execution details do not clarify the tool's primary function, and it is not distinguished from sibling tools such as build_ad or leanriq_run_creative_chain.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the mention of mutation modes and 'Task support: forbidden' implies some usage constraints, there is no direction on choosing between mutate modes or when this tool is preferred over related queries or build tools.

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?