Launch the SAME campaign set across MULTIPLE ad accounts in one call (up to 5 accounts; chain calls for more). Each account gets its own currency-aware guardrails, capacity check (throttled accounts are skipped, not hammered), and correct Page/Instagram/pixel. WRITES live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| campaigns | Yes | ||
| account_ids | Yes | Up to 5 Meta ad account IDs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it writes live (non-readOnly), performs capacity checks, skips throttled accounts (not hammered), and applies currency-aware guardrails. These details add significant value beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation.
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?
Four sentences, each adding value: purpose + limit, behavioral details for each account, specific aspects (guardrails, capacity), and write emphasis. No fluff.
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?
Covers core constraints (account limit, throttled skip, guardrails) but lacks details on return value, error handling, confirmation parameter, and chain mechanism. Acceptable given complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description does not explain parameter syntax or semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the account limit but does not clarify the confirm parameter or campaign structure details.
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?
The description clearly states it launches the same campaign set across multiple ad accounts, with explicit limits (up to 5 accounts). It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_create_campaigns (single account) and create_campaign (single campaign).
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?
Provides clear context: use for launching same campaigns across multiple accounts, with account limit and chain calls for more. Mentions throttled accounts are skipped. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives to other tools, but overall usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but creation tools (create_campaign, bulk_create_campaigns, create_structured, add_ad_to_adset) overlap in scope, potentially causing misselection. However, descriptions clarify differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as 'bulk_create_campaigns', 'get_insights', 'pause_campaigns'. No mixing of conventions.
23 tools cover the Meta Ads domain well, but the count is slightly high. Most tools are justified, though some could be merged (e.g., creation variants).
Core CRUD is covered for campaigns and ads, but there is no tool to create an ad set independently (only via create_structured). Creative editing and standalone ad set creation are missing, leaving notable gaps.