Retrieve Facebook ad sets from an ad account, with optional filtering by campaign ID. Use it to list or inspect ad set details within Meta's Marketing API.
Get ad sets, optionally filtered by campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| campaign_id | No | ||
| ad_account_id | No |
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a read operation via "Get" but does not mention pagination behavior despite a limit parameter, default page size, required permissions, or ordering of results. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant 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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but as a structure/conciseness matter it is clean.
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 explained, but for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description omits too much. An agent cannot tell how to scope results by ad account or what limit does.
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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at campaign_id filtering but says nothing about ad_account_id scoping or what the limit parameter controls.
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 ("Get ad sets") plus a scope hint ("optionally filtered by campaign"). However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_adset_details, so an agent must infer that this is the list endpoint versus the singular detail endpoint.
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?
The phrase "optionally filtered by campaign" implies the campaign_id parameter is available but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_adset_details, get_ads, or get_campaigns. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.