Ads MCP for Snapchat

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

snap_set_targeting

Destructive

Change an ad squad's targeting for countries, age, gender, interests, device OS, include segments, or stop excluding segments. Preview first, then apply with an approval token.

Instructions

Change an ad squad's targeting: countries, age, gender, interests, device OS, include segments, or stop excluding segments. Everything not mentioned is kept; countries that stay in the list keep their regional geo entries. Previews unless confirm=true. Two steps: confirm=false returns a preview and an approval_token; to apply, repeat the same arguments with confirm=true and that approval_token.

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": {
      "adsquad_id": "<adsquad_id>"
    },
    "name": "snap_set_targeting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gender`	No
`confirm`	No	false = preview only (nothing sent). true = apply; needs approval_token from the preview.
`max_age`	No
`min_age`	No
`os_type`	No
`countries`	No
`interests`	No	Replace interests with these ids (e.g. SLC_11); use snap_targeting_options to find ids
`adsquad_id`	Yes
`clear_devices`	No
`approval_token`	No	The approval_token returned by the preview of this exact request. Required with confirm=true.
`clear_interests`	No
`include_segments`	No
`remove_exclusions`	No	Segment ids to stop excluding

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.1Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds the crucial missing behavior: merge semantics for unmentioned fields, preservation of regional geo entries for retained countries, and a preview-then-apply approval_token handshake. That is exactly the kind of protocol knowledge annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences: what changes, what is preserved, then how to preview and apply. The mutation semantics and the confirm protocol are ordered so the agent reads the risk-relevant constraint before calling anything, with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 13-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the merge model, geo preservation, and the approval handshake that an agent most needs. It omits what the preview actually returns (beyond the token) and never mentions the two clear_* flags, leaving a small gap.

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 only 31%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does by naming countries, age, gender, interests, device OS, include_segments, remove_exclusions, confirm, and approval_token. It leaves clear_devices and clear_interests unexplained in both schema and description, which slightly undercuts its own 'everything not mentioned is kept' framing since clearing is a distinct operation.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Change an ad squad's targeting') and enumerates the exact editable dimensions: countries, age, gender, interests, device OS, include segments, exclusions. This separates it cleanly from siblings like snap_set_placement, snap_set_bid, or snap_bulk_exclude_segments.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it is a partial update ('Everything not mentioned is kept') and it previews unless confirm=true, with an explicit two-step procedure for applying changes. It never names an alternative tool for cases this one does not handle (e.g. bulk exclusion tools), so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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

Deploy Server