flayr

Set the ad account spending limit

ads_account_spend_limit_set

[writes · ads:spend scope] Sets the Meta ad account spending limit, in the account currency (e.g. 800 = $800). Removing the limit (null) always needs the owner. Inside the owner's agent ceiling it is applied at once; above it the result is approval_requested: tell the user the owner has an approval request in Ads > Agent activity, and repeat the same call once they approve. Pass agentName and reason; both are shown to the owner. (Wraps POST /api/v2/ads/accounts/spend-limit.)

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": {
      "agentName": "<agentName>",
      "reason": "<reason>",
      "spendCap": "<spendCap>"
    },
    "name": "ads_account_spend_limit_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	Yes	Why the agent is doing this. Shown to the owner and kept in the audit trail.
`brandId`	No	A brand id (GET /api/v2/brands) or "personal"; default: the key owner's active brand.
`spendCap`	Yes	The new limit in the ad account currency, or null to remove it.
`agentName`	Yes	Which agent is acting. Shown to the owner in Ads > Agent activity.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the required `ads:spend` scope, the immediate-apply vs `approval_requested` behavior, the rule that null removal needs the owner, where the owner sees the request (Ads > Agent activity), and that agentName and reason are surfaced to the owner. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

The opening sentence front-loads the operation and its unit convention, then moves to the removal rule and approval workflow in order of what an agent needs to act. The parenthetical API route is compact and every clause carries operational meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the meaningful response state (`approval_requested`) and what to do with it. Combined with the auth scope and owner-permission rules, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly and handle the outcome.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by restating the currency semantics of spendCap with a concrete example and by explaining that agentName and reason are shown to the owner and audited. brandId's 'personal' vs brand-id semantics are left entirely to the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Sets the Meta ad account spending limit') and clarifies the unit ('in the account currency (e.g. 800 = $800)'). It is clearly a write operation on ad-account spend. It does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling ads_caps_set, leaving some ambiguity about which cap tool to use.

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?

Concrete conditions are given: removing the limit (null) always requires the owner, and values above the owner's agent ceiling trigger an approval flow with explicit next steps. What is missing is any routing guidance versus the sibling ads_caps_set or ads_accounts_list, so the agent must infer which tool applies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All flayr 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?