Skip to main content
Glama

Facebook_ads

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are minimal (all false) and do not contradict the description. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing rate limits (5 per identifier per day), the claim_token mechanism for tracking, that it is free and does not count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. This is rich context for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While longer than average, every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, exclusion, token mechanics, rate limits, and quota. The structure front-loads the core purpose and flows logically, with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will get back (a claim_token if no account) and how to use it. It covers prerequisites, side effects, and limitations, making the tool's behavior predictable. Given the tool's complexity, this description is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant cross-parameter meaning: it explains how claim_token is used (pass it back to read reply), maps type values to real-world scenarios, and instructs on message content formatting. This elevates it above the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates distinct feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly scopes itself to tools served by this Pipeworx connection, distinguishing it from all sibling tools like ask_pipeworx.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers mapped to feedback types, and an explicit exclusion: tools from other MCP servers should be reported there, not here. It also offers guidance on how to phrase feedback (in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, not end-user prompts), which is actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Facebook_ads toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The 11 fb_* Facebook tools are clearly separated by resource (account vs campaign vs adset) and action (list vs get vs create), and the Pipeworx research tools each have distinct roles (router, grounded, profile, compare, research). However, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and deep_research overlap in routing/fan-out behavior, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-identical in purpose, creating some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The 11 fb_* tools follow a consistent fb_verb_noun pattern (except fb_get_campaign vs fb_list_*), but the remaining 25+ tools mix verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and generic names (forget, recall, remember). Pipeworx tools use verb_noun mostly consistently (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, resolve_entity) but the overall set blends two naming cultures without a unifying prefix or pattern.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the heavy side for one server. The Facebook ads domain only needs ~11 tools, while the rest are a sprawling Pipeworx research/meta platform (memory, subscription, prediction-market, web-tooling, AI-visibility) that feels like several servers merged into one. Each area is internally coherent, but as a single MCP server the count is bloated.

Completeness4/5

The Facebook ads surface covers list accounts/campaigns/adsets and read campaigns/insights, but notably lacks create/update/delete operations for campaigns and adsets, so the ad-management workflow has dead ends. The Pipeworx research side is extremely complete for data lookup (router, grounded, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, verification), though the memory/subscription tools introduce a separate domain that is only thinly supported.

Resources