AdsAgent — Meta Ads MCP

ads_replace_page_confirm

DestructiveIdempotent

Run the change the user just confirmed: set the reviewed identity field of one Meta ad from current to approved value

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_value`	No
`old_value`	No
`entity_name`	No
`confirm_token`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No
`retryable`	No
`support_ref`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / connection_context

Removed value: -{
-  "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / entity_name
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / new_value

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "number",
+    "boolean",
+    "object",
+    "array"
+  ]
+}

addedInput schema / properties / old_value

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "number",
+    "boolean",
+    "object",
+    "array",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026
- addedOutput schema / else / then / properties / category
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / else / then / properties / expected
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / else / then / properties / failure_kind
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / else / then / properties / responsibility_hint
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / else / then / properties / route
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / else / then / properties / user_visible
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / connection_context
```
Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds some context by framing the call as applying a previously reviewed user-confirmed change to one ad, but it does not explain the confirmation mechanism or the consequences of executing the mutation.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('Run the change the user just confirmed: set...') but remains compact and easy to scan.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Although an output schema and annotations reduce the burden, the input schema has zero description coverage and the description leaves the required confirm_token and entity_name semantics unexplained. For a destructive confirmation tool, that is a meaningful completeness gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies that old_value/current and new_value/approved correspond to the field transition, and entity_name relates to the one Meta ad, but it never explains the required confirm_token or clarifies the entity scope.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific action: applying a user-confirmed change to one Meta ad by setting an identity field from current to approved value. It is distinguishable from the adjacent prepare/deny siblings through the phrase 'the user just confirmed,' though 'reviewed identity field' is slightly vague compared with the tool name's explicit 'page' replacement.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly indicates the tool should be used after the user has confirmed the change, which gives an agent a usable gating condition. It does not explicitly name the matching prepare or deny alternatives, but the usage context is still understandable.

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

All AdsAgent — Meta Ads MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?