get_adset_details
Retrieve detailed information for a specific Facebook ad set by its ID.
Instructions
Get one ad set in detail.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adset_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Retrieve detailed information for a specific Facebook ad set by its ID.
Get one ad set in detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adset_id | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get one ad set in detail.' It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's read-only (though 'get' implies read), rate limits, or what fields are returned.
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?
Extremely concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it's arguably too terse, missing potential useful context that could be added without bloat.
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?
Given there's a single parameter with no schema description and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. But with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context such as read-only nature or typical use cases.
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% for the single parameter 'adset_id'. The description doesn't describe the parameter, but with one required string parameter that is self-explanatory, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb (get) and resource (one ad set) in detail. It distinguishes from get_adsets (plural list) by specifying 'one' ad set, but doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus get_adsets or get_ad_details. The description is purely about what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.