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, and on a draft the targeting
            group is also deleted from the channel's groups; a container left holding ads with
            nothing to target them is named in the removal message. 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal destructive/write behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: how Channel-First/Native campaigns clear WizNativeAdContainer.targetingGroupId, how empty containers are dropped, draft-specific deletion behavior, legacy Precision/METADATA deletion, and the partial-failure semantics in removal_results. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-organized into purpose, usage, behavioral details, response expectations, and an example, and the front-loaded first sentence gives immediate purpose. It is somewhat verbose and the REQUIRED PARAMETERS section largely restates the schema, but the extra length is justified by the destructive, two-structure behavior.

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?

For a destructive tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers side effects per campaign structure, response shape, partial failures, and how to interpret results. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand the consequences.

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, but the description adds interpretive value by clarifying that channel and targeting-group IDs are resolved internally, so the caller only needs channel type and names. It also provides a concrete worked example that matches the nested schema shape.

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: 'Remove targeting groups from one or more channels in an existing campaign.' It clearly distinguishes target groups from audiences and names the sibling tool for removing audiences, so an agent can differentiate it even among many related siblings.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: to detach a named Targeting Group from a channel, with only channel type and group name needed because IDs are resolved internally. It also gives an exclusion: targeting groups are NOT audiences, and points to remove_audiences_from_campaign for standard audience removal. This is strong 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