meta-ads-mcp

get_details_of_ad_account

Retrieve selected details of a Meta ad account by providing its act ID and choosing fields like balance, status, or amount spent.

Instructions

Get details of a specific ad account as per the fields provided Args: act_id: The act ID of the ad account, example: act_1234567890 fields: The fields to get from the ad account. If None, defaults are used. Available fields include: name, business_name, age, account_status, balance, amount_spent, attribution_spec, account_id, business, business_city, brand_safety_content_filter_levels, currency, created_time, id. Returns:
A dictionary containing the details of the ad account

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`act_id`	Yes
`fields`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type ('A dictionary'), the default behavior for fields, and the read-only nature implied by 'Get'. However, it does not mention permissions, error cases, or behavior for invalid act_id.

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?

The description is a clean docstring with front-loaded purpose, followed by Args and Returns. The field list is lengthy but necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, and every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity getter with one required parameterfixed, this description covers what the tool does, both parameters, default behavior, and return type. Given the output schema also exists, nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting act_id with an example and explaining fields, including the default behavior and an enumerated list of available fields. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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') and resource ('ad account'), and clarifies it's for a specific account, distinguishing it from list_ad_accounts and get_adaccount_insights. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly implies use when you have a specific act_id and want detailed fields for that account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'specific ad account' framing provides sufficient context among the many sibling getters.

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

Deploy Server