Skip to main content
Glama
Meta Ads MCP Server

Meta Ads MCP Server

Get example prompts

get_example_prompts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns ready-to-use example prompts for reporting, optimizing, and launching Meta Ads campaigns, helping users decide what to ask the agent first. Outputs a Markdown list.

Instructions

Get example prompts that work with the hosted Meta Ads MCP server by AdKit, such as reporting, optimizing and launching campaigns. Use this when the user asks what to try first or what to ask the agent. Returns a Markdown list.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_example_prompts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the output format ('Returns a Markdown list'), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but nothing else is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the trigger, then the return format. Minor padding in the vendor branding ('hosted Meta Ads MCP server by AdKit') that is not essential to invocation.

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 parameterless, read-only content tool this is nearly complete: purpose, trigger, and return format are all present, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Only the relationship to sibling help tools is unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly presents the tool as a no-argument call.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieve example prompts that work with the hosted Meta Ads MCP server, with example categories (reporting, optimizing, launching). An agent can tell this is a static content/help tool, distinct from setup or FAQ tools, though siblings are not named explicitly.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use this when the user asks what to try first or what to ask the agent.' It does not name exclusions or point at get_faq / get_setup_guide for adjacent onboarding questions, so routing between the help-family siblings is left partly to inference.

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