Skip to main content
Glama
Meta Ads MCP Server

Meta Ads MCP Server

Get FAQ

get_faq
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch answers to common Meta Ads MCP server questions—pricing, safety, API keys, multiple ad accounts, supported AI apps—before replying from memory; returns Markdown, one heading per question.

Instructions

Get the answers to common questions about the hosted Meta Ads MCP server by AdKit: price, safety and approvals, API keys, several ad accounts and supported AI apps. Use this before answering such a question from memory. Returns Markdown, one heading per question.

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_faq"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add what they can't: the return format ('Markdown, one heading per question') and the intended usage posture. It adds real value beyond annotations, though nothing about size or scope limits of the content.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the usage rule and return format. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-param static content tool with no output schema, an agent needs to know what topics are covered, when to reach for it, and what comes back. All three are present, so nothing material is missing.

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?

Zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter discussion.

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 ('Get the answers') and a concrete resource (FAQ for the hosted Meta Ads MCP server by AdKit), then enumerates the exact topics covered: price, safety and approvals, API keys, multiple ad accounts, supported AI apps. That topical enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like get_setup_guide and get_example_prompts without needing to name them.

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?

"Use this before answering such a question from memory" gives an explicit trigger condition that an agent can act on. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the sibling tools to prefer for other question types, so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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