AdsAgent — Meta Ads MCP

operations_confirm_campaign_recreate

DestructiveIdempotent

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ad_count`	No
`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.

Changed5 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"
-}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds that the effect is queued (not immediate) and gated on an approval reference, which is genuine extra context, but it says nothing about what gets destroyed or whether counts are validated.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and the required inputs are stated immediately. Slightly terse for the complexity involved.

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 needn't be described, and the approval-gated queued-task model is conveyed. But for a destructive, multi-parameter confirm tool, the digest/count verification semantics are left unexplained.

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 only 17%, so the description needed to compensate but largely just restates the two required field names. It does not explain the approval_ref/digest pairing, the role of campaign_names ordering, or whether the count fields act as verification guards.

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: 'recreate the approved Meta campaign structure from a prior task as a queued task.' That distinguishes it from preparation siblings like campaigns_recreate_from_task and from structure-clone confirm, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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' implies the precondition (a prior approval exists), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to related siblings such as operations_confirm_structure_clone or operations_deny_approval for the negative path.

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?