Check an ad account's current Meta API rate-limit headroom BEFORE a bulk run. Read-only. Returns GO/TIGHT/SPLIT/WAIT_OR_SPLIT/WAIT + utilization + regain minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_count | No | ||
| meta_account_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description declares read-only, consistent with readOnlyHint annotation. Also specifies return values (GO/TIGHT/SPLIT/WAIT_OR_SPLIT/WAIT + utilization + regain minutes), adding behavioral detail beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences front-loaded with purpose and return values. No wasted words. Could add parameter details without losing conciseness.
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?
With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, description provides purpose, usage context, and return format but omits parameter details. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete regarding inputs.
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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. However, description does not explain the parameters (meta_account_id, campaign_count). campaign_count is left unexplained, which is a significant gap.
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?
Description explicitly states verb (check), resource (ad account's Meta API rate-limit headroom), and context (before a bulk run). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on capacity checking.
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?
States explicit usage context ('BEFORE a bulk run') and read-only nature. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context implies appropriate usage.
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.