mcp-facebook-ads

create_adset

Build a Facebook ad set inside an existing campaign by defining targeting, billing event, optimization goal, schedule, and budget to control delivery and spend.

Instructions

Create ad set with targeting and optimization settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`status`	No	PAUSED
`end_time`	No
`targeting`	Yes
`bid_amount`	No
`start_time`	No
`campaign_id`	Yes
`daily_budget`	No
`ad_account_id`	No
`billing_event`	Yes
`lifetime_budget`	No
`optimization_goal`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the ad set is created paused or active (despite the 'status' default being PAUSED), whether it requires a specific ad account, or what happens to budgets and targeting. For a multi-parameter mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters. Conciseness is appropriate, though it borders on being too sparse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 12 parameters, 5 required, nested targeting object, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits required fields, defaults (e.g., status defaults to PAUSED), and budget implications. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side remains incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no semantic help for any of the 12 parameters. The description mentions only 'targeting and optimization settings', leaving 10 parameters (including required ones like billing_event, campaign_id, and name) completely unexplained. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and resource ('Create ad set') and mentions 'targeting and optimization settings', which maps to two fields. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_campaign or create_ad beyond the resource noun, leaving the agent to infer the level of the ad hierarchy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use create_adset versus alternatives such as create_ad or create_campaign, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing a campaign_id first. The description offers no context beyond the action itself.

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