Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Meta Ads MCP

Meta Ads MCP

by AbnerZx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

leads_list_from_form

Fetch actual leads submitted to a Meta Ads form using its form ID, with pagination to retrieve large lists.

Instructions

Retrieve actual leads submitted to a form.

Args: after_cursor: Pagination cursor from a previous response (paging.cursors.after).

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>"
    },
    "name": "leads_list_from_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
form_idYes
after_cursorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies read-only via 'Retrieve' and explains the after_cursor pagination field, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. The pagination context adds some value beyond the schema.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section adds a small structured element. It is appropriately concise, though it could organize parameter details more cleanly.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotation support, and only one of three parameters is described. The description does not explain the required form_id, the role of limit, or pagination behavior beyond the cursor field. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains after_cursor ('Pagination cursor from a previous response (paging.cursors.after)'), while form_id and limit remain undocumented. This is insufficient for the parameter-heavy tool.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states 'Retrieve actual leads submitted to a form' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like leads_list_from_ad (leads from an ad) and leads_list_forms (list forms).

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?

The usage context is clear: this tool retrieves leads for a specific form. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare with leads_list_from_ad, so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools