AdsAgent — Meta Ads MCP

operations_confirm_campaign_create

DestructiveIdempotent

Run the change the user just confirmed in this conversation: build the approved Meta campaign structure as a queued task. Requires approval_ref and expected_plan_digest

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "approval_ref": "<approval_ref>",
      "expected_plan_digest": "<expected_plan_digest>"
    },
    "name": "operations_confirm_campaign_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ad_count`	No
`currency`	No	Account currency code shown in the approval.
`adset_count`	No
`approval_ref`	Yes
`campaign_count`	No
`campaign_names`	No	Campaign names in the exact order shown in the approval.
`expected_plan_digest`	Yes

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / ad_count

Added value: +{
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / adset_count

Added value: +{
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / campaign_count

Added value: +{
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / campaign_names

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Campaign names in the exact order shown in the approval.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / connection_context

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

addedInput schema / properties / currency

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Account currency code shown in the approval.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / approval_ref / maxLength
```
Previous value: -25New value: +38
```
- changedInput schema / properties / approval_ref / pattern
```
Previous value: -"^appr_[0-9a-f]{20}$"New value: +"^(?:appr_[0-9a-f]{20}|batch_[0-9a-f]{32})$"
```
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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, non-readOnly, non-openWorld, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the effect is asynchronous ('queued task') and gated on an approval reference plus plan digest, which is the key behavioral nuance for a confirm tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, action first, gating requirement second. No filler; the only marginal redundancy is restating required params already encoded in the schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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 don't need explaining, and annotations carry the safety profile. But for a destructive, digest-verified confirm step, the description omits the failure semantics (digest mismatch, stale approval, duplicate submission behavior despite idempotentHint) that an agent most needs before invoking.

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 coverage is only 29% and the description addresses just 2 of 7 params, merely restating that they are required (already in the schema). It says nothing about what approval_ref identifies, why expected_plan_digest must match, or what the count/name/currency params are used for, so the five undocumented parameters are left unclarified.

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 concrete action ('build the approved Meta campaign structure as a queued task'), which is clearly a structure-creation action rather than the many status/budget/copy variants among its operations_confirm_* siblings. The remaining ambiguity is with operations_confirm_campaign_recreate, which is not called out.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Run the change the user just confirmed in this conversation' establishes the precondition (a prior approval in-context), and naming the two required gating params implies the approval flow. However, it never names the sibling that produces the approval_ref/plan digest, nor when to prefer campaigns_quick_create or operations_confirm_campaign_recreate.

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?