Skip to main content
Glama

Metadata MCP Connector

Remove Targeting Groups from Campaign

remove_target_groups_from_campaign
Destructive

Remove targeting groups from one or more channels in an existing campaign.

            Use this tool to detach a named Targeting Group from a channel (e.g. remove
            "Tech Decision Makers" from LINKEDIN). Channel + targeting-group IDs are resolved
            internally — you only need the channel type and the targeting group name. (Targeting
            groups are NOT audiences — to remove a standard audience use
            remove_audiences_from_campaign.)

            Works on both campaign structures. On a Channel-First / Native (N×N×N) campaign the
            targeting group is cleared from its WizNativeAdContainer.targetingGroupId; any
            container then left with no asset at all is dropped. On Precision/METADATA it uses the
            legacy group delete.

            KEYWORDS: remove, delete, targeting group, target group, channel, campaign

            RESPONSE:
            - Returns the refreshed campaign state plus a removal_results list with one
              entry per requested removal recording its success or error. ALWAYS check
              removal_results — a partial failure (e.g. one of two names not found) still
              returns normally, so report only what actually came back successful.

            REQUIRED PARAMETERS:
            - campaign_id: Campaign ID (numeric identifier)
            - channel_target_groups: Object mapping channel type → list of targeting group names

            EXAMPLE:
            remove_target_groups_from_campaign({
                "campaign_id": 42545,
                "channel_target_groups": {"LINKEDIN": ["Tech Decision Makers"]}
            })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idYesThe unique identifier of the campaign
channel_target_groupsYesMap of channel type to list of targeting group names to remove. Example: {"LINKEDIN": ["Tech Decision Makers"]}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses internal ID resolution, behavior on WizNativeAdContainer.targetingGroupId, container dropping when no asset remains, use of the legacy group delete on Precision/METADATA, and partial failure behavior. It also warns to always check removal_results, which is valuable operational transparency.

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?

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, structure-specific behavior, keywords, response notes, required parameters, and an example. Each section contributes essential information without unnecessary filler.

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?

This is a destructive, nested-object operation with no output schema, yet the description covers invocation context, both internal campaign structures, required parameters, an example, and the response format including partial failure behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that channel and targeting-group IDs are resolved internally, so only channel type and targeting group name are needed, and by providing a concrete example that maps campaign_id and channel_target_groups.

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 'Remove targeting groups from one or more channels in an existing campaign,' a specific verb plus resource that clearly states the operation. It also explicitly distinguishes targeting groups from audiences by naming remove_audiences_from_campaign, making sibling differentiation strong.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool and provides an exclusion: 'Targeting groups are NOT audiences — to remove a standard audience use remove_audiences_from_campaign.' It also explains that both campaign structures are supported and details how each is handled, giving agents clear contextual guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources