Create a Facebook ad campaign from a best-practice template by providing a template key and campaign name, with optional daily budget and ad account.
Create a campaign from a best-practice template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| daily_budget | No | ||
| template_key | Yes | ||
| ad_account_id | No | ||
| campaign_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies preset best-practice settings are applied but says nothing about which settings the template controls, whether daily_budget overrides the template default, whether ad_account_id is required for authentication, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding is structurally sound, but for a 4-parameter mutating tool it is underspecified rather than concise. The terseness leaves the agent without the context it needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the combination of zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, and overlapping siblings (create_campaign, get_campaign_templates) leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 4 parameters (template_key, campaign_name, daily_budget, ad_account_id) and the description documents none of them. It does not explain template_key's format or source, nor the units of daily_budget, nor the default ad account behavior — so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a campaign') with the distinguishing modifier 'from a best-practice template', which separates it from the sibling create_campaign. It stops short of naming the sibling or the relationship to get_campaign_templates, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining template_key via get_campaign_templates), and no comparison to create_campaign. The agent is left to infer that this is the template-driven alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.