Modify a Facebook ads campaign by changing its name, status, daily budget, or lifetime budget using the campaign ID. Use it to pause, activate, rename, or adjust spend limits.
Update campaign status/budget/name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| daily_budget | No | ||
| lifetime_budget | 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 burden. It states 'update' but omits whether changes are reversible, whether budget changes take effect immediately, what partial updates do to unset fields, and any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Under-specification is the issue, not verbosity.
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?
With five parameters, one required, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a mutation operation, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the behavioral and parameter gaps remain.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It mentions status, budget, and name but ignores campaign_id (the only required parameter), the distinction between daily_budget and lifetime_budget, and valid status values.
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?
Names a specific verb (update) and resource (campaign) and lists the mutable fields (status/budget/name), so the purpose is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like update_adset or update_ad_creative beyond the resource noun, and 'budget' is ambiguous between the two budget parameters.
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 prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as update_adset or create_campaign. The agent must infer that this edits an existing campaign by name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.