AdsAgent — Meta Ads MCP

operations_confirm_ad_status

Destructive

After explicit user approval, change delivery status of one Meta ad. Uses only the stored plan selected by approval_ref and expected_plan_digest; rejects other operation kinds before reserving or applying anything. Changes external Meta advertising state and may affect spend

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approval_ref`	Yes
`connection_context`	No
`expected_plan_digest`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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"
+}
```
AddedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: it rejects other operation kinds before reserving or applying anything, binds execution to a stored plan, and warns that external Meta state and spend can change. It omits auth requirements and rate/limit behavior, keeping it just short of top marks.

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 gating condition ('After explicit user approval') is front-loaded, and all three sentences carry information. The middle sentence is dense with its semicolon-joined clauses, which slightly hurts scannability but not comprehension.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema available, the description covers gating, plan integrity, rejection semantics, and external/spend impact. The main gap is connection_context, which is never explained anywhere, plus no mention of required authorization.

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

Parameters3/5

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 explains that approval_ref and expected_plan_digest jointly select and validate the stored plan, but leaves connection_context entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('change delivery status of one Meta ad') and its singular scope implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling operations_confirm_ad_statuses. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling or the prepare counterpart (ads_prepare_status_change), so the distinction is left to inference.

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 states a clear precondition: only run after explicit user approval, using the stored plan chosen by approval_ref and expected_plan_digest. It does not name alternatives (e.g. the prepare step that must precede this confirm) or state when this tool should not be used, so exclusions are absent.

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?