List uploaded media in the ad account. Actions: list_images, list_videos.
[Flattened action: list_videos]
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "meta_ads_media_list_videos"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| auth_account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal context by scoping the operation to uploaded media in the ad account, but does not mention pagination, return shape, or account/auth handling.
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 description is short but includes extraneous lines such as 'Actions: list_images, list_videos' and '[Flattened action: list_videos]' that add noise rather than useful selection information. The first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the rest is not fully purposeful.
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?
This is a simple list operation, but the description lacks parameter semantics, alternative guidance, and output expectations. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the video list contains or how results are returned, which it does not.
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 input schema has two parameters (account, auth_account) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning, format, or required role of either parameter. This leaves the agent without adequate parameter-level guidance.
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 says 'List uploaded media in the ad account' and specifically identifies the flattened action as list_videos, which clearly conveys that the tool lists video media. However, the mention of list_images alongside list_videos adds slight ambiguity and prevents a perfect score.
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?
No usage guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over meta_ads_media_list_images or other media-related tools. The description lists action names but does not explain context, prerequisites, 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.