AdsAgent — Meta Ads MCP

support_get_report_status

Read-only

Read a support report status

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 23, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / connection_context
```
Removed value: -{
-  "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
Changed9 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / request / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / request / properties
```
Added value: +{
+  "report_ref": {
+    "maxLength": 36,
+    "minLength": 36,
+    "pattern": "^rpt_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{32}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / request / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "report_ref"
+]
```
- addedOutput schema / then / properties / category
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / then / properties / expected
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / then / properties / failure_kind
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / then / properties / responsibility_hint
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / then / properties / route
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / 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"
+}
```
First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of whether status is terminal, whether polling is expected, or what happens with an invalid/expired report_ref. With annotations handling the safety profile, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes essentially zero behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way. There is no second sentence adding the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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

Completeness2/5

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool whose only parameter is an opaque, strictly-formatted report reference, the definition omits where that reference comes from and what the status values mean. That is a material gap an agent cannot close from the structured fields alone.

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 0% for the single nested report_ref parameter, and the description does not compensate at all. It doesn't explain that report_ref is an opaque ID returned by another tool (likely support_report_error), nor that the schema's pattern/length constraints require an exact 36-character rpt_ prefixed identifier. The schema enforces the format but the description gives no semantic meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Read a support report status" names a verb (read) and resource (support report status), so the basic purpose is clear. It offers no differentiation from the sibling support_report_error and does not clarify what 'status' entails (processing, completed, failed).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to support_report_error. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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?