Get a facebook.com preview link for a drafted Meta ad, so the user can see exactly what it will look like before deciding to activate. Use after create_meta_ad_draft or when the user asks to see a drafted ad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ad_id | Yes | Numeric ad id (from create_meta_ad_draft output) | |
| companyId | Yes | FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it returns a preview link. It implies the operation is read-only (preview before activation) and non-destructive. No contradictions.
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, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a straightforward preview tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output type, and usage sequence. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.
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?
The schema describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context: ad_id is described as 'Numeric ad id (from create_meta_ad_draft output)' and companyId as 'FreedomOS company id to act within', aiding correct usage beyond schema basics.
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 the purpose: 'Get a facebook.com preview link for a drafted Meta ad', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('preview link'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_meta_ad_draft' and 'set_meta_ad_status'.
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 explicitly says 'Use after create_meta_ad_draft or when the user asks to see a drafted ad', providing clear context for when to invoke. It does not mention when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for the intended use case.
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.
The tool set is heavily disambiguated by detailed routing descriptions, domain prefixes, and lifecycle verbs, so most tools have a clear intended purpose. However, at 297 tools there are still close pairs and overlapping decision surfaces (e.g., approval workflows, 'what should I work on' readers, multiple finance/ads readers) that require careful description reading to avoid misselection.
Naming is predominantly consistent snake_case verb_noun with strong domain prefixes like shopify_, x_, posthog_, and list_/create_/update_ patterns. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as several collection-returning tools using get_ (get_team_members, get_icps, get_okrs) instead of list_, and some generate_ vs create_ vs draft_ verbs, but the pattern is still predictable overall.
297 tools is an extreme outlier and far beyond a usable MCP tool surface. Even a large suite has no justification for this count in one server; the agent would struggle to select among hundreds of similarly descriptive tools, and the natural 3-15 tool range is exceeded by nearly 20x.
The individual domains represented — OKRs, CRM/leads, Shopify, content pipelines, ads, PostHog, team hiring, knowledge, finance, and session management — are covered remarkably well with full lifecycle patterns. Minor gaps exist, such as no full deal CRUD, no delete for several Google/Shopify artifacts, and some analytical surfaces being read-heavy, but most workflows can be completed without dead ends.