Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
meta-ads-mcp

meta-ads-mcp

by fujioka0729
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

meta_ads_api_get

Send GET requests to the Meta Ads API to retrieve campaigns, ad sets, insights, and audience data.

Instructions

Meta Ads APIにGETリクエストを送信します

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "meta_ads_api_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAPIパス（例: /act_XXXXX/campaigns）
queryNoクエリパラメータ（例: fields, limit）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility but only states it sends a GET request. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or side effects. This is insufficient for an API tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, but it sacrifices essential detail for brevity. While concise, it lacks content that would be valuable for an agent, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain response format, required permissions, or how to construct paths/parameters effectively, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (path and query) in Japanese. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it sends a GET request to the Meta Ads API, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_ads_api_post or meta_ads_api_delete. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., any endpoint) but the verb and resource are clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for invocation. The description is too minimal to help an agent decide when to choose this over other tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools