Search Meta's targeting interests by keyword (e.g. 'yoga', 'small business owners'). Returns interest names, IDs, and audience sizes — useful when planning campaigns. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| meta_account_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying return fields (names, IDs, audience sizes) and reinforcing read-only nature. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, providing useful behavioral context.
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 with no wasted words. The action and purpose are front-loaded. Example keywords and return value summary are efficiently integrated.
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?
Given the absence of output schema, the description adequately covers return values (interest names, IDs, audience sizes). It lacks details on pagination or limits, but for a simple search tool this is acceptable. The unexplained 'meta_account_id' parameter is a minor gap.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'query' parameter via the keyword example but does not explain 'meta_account_id' or provide syntax/format. This is insufficient for effective parameter understanding.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Meta's targeting interests') and provides examples ('yoga', 'small business owners'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on campaign and ad management.
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?
The description states the tool is useful when planning campaigns and gives example keywords, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to specific alternatives, though sibling context makes it 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.