Skip to main content
Glama
EfrainTorres

ArmaVita Meta Ads MCP

clone_ad

Duplicate Meta ads to test variations or scale campaigns using Meta's Graph API copy functionality.

Instructions

Duplicate an ad using Meta's local Graph copy edge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ad_idYes
meta_access_tokenNo
target_ad_set_idNo
name_suffixNo - Copy
clone_ad_creativeNo
new_creative_nameNo
new_statusNoPAUSED

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the clone_ad tool, which forwards the duplication request to the Meta Graph API via _forward_duplication_request.
    async def clone_ad(
        ad_id: str,
        meta_access_token: Optional[str] = None,
        target_ad_set_id: Optional[str] = None,
        name_suffix: Optional[str] = " - Copy",
        clone_ad_creative: bool = True,
        new_creative_name: Optional[str] = None,
        new_status: Optional[str] = "PAUSED",
    ) -> str:
        """Duplicate an ad using Meta's local Graph copy edge."""
        return await _forward_duplication_request(
            "ad",
            ad_id,
            meta_access_token,
            {
                "target_ad_set_id": target_ad_set_id,
                "name_suffix": name_suffix,
                "clone_ad_creative": clone_ad_creative,
                "new_creative_name": new_creative_name,
                "new_status": new_status,
            },
        )
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'duplicate' implies a write operation, it doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens to the original ad. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate—it should describe more about the cloning process and outcomes.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It avoids unnecessary words and doesn't repeat the tool name. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., 'Creates a copy of an existing ad...'), but as-is, it's appropriately concise.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description. However, for a tool that duplicates ads, more context on behavior, parameters, and usage relative to siblings would improve completeness.

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%, meaning parameter titles are generic (e.g., 'Ad Id', 'Target Ad Set Id'). The description adds no semantic context about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'ad_id' refers to, how 'name_suffix' is applied, or what 'new_status' options exist. With 7 parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about their meanings and usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Duplicate an ad using Meta's local Graph copy edge.' It specifies the verb ('duplicate') and resource ('an ad'), and mentions the underlying mechanism ('Meta's local Graph copy edge'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clone_ad_creative' or 'clone_ad_set', which would require a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'clone_ad' over 'create_ad' or 'update_ad', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., create_ad, update_ad, clone_ad_creative), this lack of context is a significant gap.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EfrainTorres/armavita-meta-ads-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server