list_campaigns
List existing campaigns with status, budget, effective status. Read-only.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status_filter | No | ||
| meta_account_id | No |
List existing campaigns with status, budget, effective status. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status_filter | No | ||
| meta_account_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds specific fields returned (status, budget, effective status), providing useful context beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every word adds value.
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 4 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to fully inform usage. Lacks parameter details and return format.
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 coverage is 0% and description provides no information about any of the 4 parameters (after, limit, status_filter, meta_account_id). Fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.
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?
Clearly states verb 'List', resource 'campaigns', and specifies included fields (status, budget, effective status). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign, delete_campaigns, etc.
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?
Mentions 'Read-only' implying safe usage, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling listing tools (e.g., list_ads, list_adsets) or when not to use it.
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.