Retrieve detailed information for a specific Meta Ads ad using its ID. Optionally provide an access token or use cached credentials.
Get detailed information about a specific ad.
Args: ad_id: Meta Ads ad ID access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ad_id | Yes | ||
| access_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a useful behavioral detail: the access_token is optional and a cached token will be used if not provided. However, it does not mention other traits like error behavior, rate limits, or read-only nature, leaving some gaps.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one clear sentence plus an args list. Every part adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose. No waste.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It states purpose, parameters, and token behavior. The presence of an output schema means detailed return values are already defined, so the description need not explain them.
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%, but the description compensates by explaining ad_id as 'Meta Ads ad ID' and access_token as 'Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare field titles.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific ad.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the singular 'specific ad' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ads (which likely lists ads).
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?
The description implies usage: when you need details for a single ad. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives like get_ads for listing. The guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.