AdsAgent — Meta Ads MCP

operations_confirm_campaign_budgets

Destructive

After explicit user approval, replace daily budgets for the approved batch of Meta campaigns. 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 flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive external write. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it states it reserves/applies only the stored plan, rejects mismatched operation kinds before committing, and warns that external Meta spend may change. Return behavior is covered by the output schema.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then mechanism, then the side-effect warning. No filler.

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, approval-gated tool with 3 params at 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the trigger, safety guard, and side effect well. It leaves connection_context unexplained and doesn't detail failure/rejection responses, keeping it short of complete.

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 compensate. It explains that approval_ref selects the stored plan and expected_plan_digest guards it, adding real meaning over bare pattern strings, but it never documents connection_context or the digest's tamper-detection role in depth. Baseline-plus for low coverage, but not complete.

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 verb and resource ('replace daily budgets for the approved batch of Meta campaigns') and distinguishes itself from the singular sibling operations_confirm_campaign_budget by specifying a batch. It does not name siblings explicitly but the batch scope and approval-gating make the purpose clear.

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 states the precondition ('after explicit user approval') and that only the stored plan selected by approval_ref plus expected_plan_digest is used, rejecting other operation kinds. It gives context for when this fires (post-approval confirmation) without naming deny/prepare alternatives, but the routing is implicit in the sibling naming convention.

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?