AdsAgent — Meta Ads MCP

operations_confirm_campaign_budget

Destructive

After explicit user approval, replace the daily budget of one Meta campaign. 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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-read-only and open-world; the description adds real value on top by explaining that only the stored plan is used, that other operation kinds are rejected before reserving or applying anything (no partial side effects), and that external Meta advertising state and spend are affected. It does not cover idempotency or failure recovery of the reservation.

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?

Three tight sentences: precondition first, then the plan-binding mechanism and rejection guarantee, then the external side effect. Nothing is redundant and the critical trigger ('after explicit user approval') is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The description covers trigger, plan binding, pre-application rejection, and external impact, which is enough for a confirm tool of this complexity; only the third parameter and digest-mismatch behavior are unaddressed.

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 the parameters. It explains approval_ref (selects the stored plan) and expected_plan_digest (binds/validates that plan), but connection_context goes unexplained and no format or error semantics are given, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('replace the daily budget of one Meta campaign') and scopes it to a single campaign, which implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling operations_confirm_campaign_budgets. It stops short of naming that sibling or the prepare step, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

The opening clause 'After explicit user approval' gives a clear precondition for use, and the digest/approval_ref binding tells the agent this is the confirm half of a prepare/confirm flow. No alternative tool is named for the deny or prepare path, so exclusions remain implicit.

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?