meta_ads_get_campaignsMeta Ads per-campaign metrics for this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| page_id | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| ad_account | No | ||
| ig_user_id | No | ||
| user_email | No | ||
| range_preset | No | ||
| activity_only | No | ||
| campaign_name | No | ||
| property_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / actionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Action"
+}Input schema / properties / statusAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Status"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination, filtering behavior, date-range handling, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. However, for a 19-parameter tool it is far too terse to be considered appropriately sized, so it is concise without being adequately structured.
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?
The tool has an output schema and read-only annotations, so return values and safety do not need explanation. Still, the description leaves out usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and all 19 parameter semantics, which makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke this complex tool confidently.
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 has 19 parameters with 0% description coverage, no enums, and no required fields. The description provides no parameter meaning at all, leaving the agent unable to infer how fields like date_from, range_preset, activity_only, or ad_account should be used.
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 identifies the platform (Meta Ads), the resource granularity (per-campaign), and the account scope. It is clear what data the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly name a verb or distinguish itself from siblings such as google_ads_get_campaigns or meta_ads_get_summary.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_ads_get_summary, meta_ads_get_fatigue, or google_ads_get_campaigns. The only contextual cue is 'for this account,' which does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.
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.