Read one Ad or Ad Set in your authorized Meta accounts and return an unsaved template preview. Does not save templates or change ads
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adset_id | No | ||
| source_ad_id | No | ||
| ad_account_id | Yes | ||
| connection_context | No | ||
| source_campaign_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / source_campaign_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / categoryAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / expectedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / then / properties / failure_kindAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / responsibility_hintAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / routeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / user_visibleAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / connection_contextAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so 'does not save or change ads' mostly restates that. The description does add genuine value by disclosing that the output is an unsaved preview, which is new 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, with the core action and scope front-loaded and zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 no explanation, and the read-only nature is covered. However, with 0% schema coverage on 5 params, the description should clarify which identifier to supply and the role of ad_account_id, which it omits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 5 parameters. The description hints at the ad-vs-adset input path (source_ad_id vs adset_id), but never explains the required ad_account_id, the connection_context pattern, or source_campaign_id, leaving four parameters undocumented anywhere.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Read one Ad or Ad Set ... and return an unsaved template preview.' The 'unsaved template preview' framing distinguishes it from templates_get/list/create, though no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies context ('in your authorized Meta accounts') and clarifies what it does not do ('Does not save templates or change ads'), but offers no explicit when-to-use vs templates_get or when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.