meta-ads-mcp

meta_ads_api_post

Create or update Meta Ads API resources by sending POST requests to specified endpoints. Provide path and body to manage campaigns, ad sets, and ads.

Instructions

Meta Ads APIにPOSTリクエストを送信します（作成・更新兼用）

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "meta_ads_api_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	APIパス（例: /act_XXXXX/campaigns）
`body`	Yes	リクエストボディ
`query`	No	クエリパラメータ

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says it sends POST requests for create/update, but lacks disclosure of rate limits, error handling, side effects, or authentication requirements. The mutation nature is implied but not explicit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence in Japanese that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary information.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to construct the path, expected response format, or error handling. For a general-purpose POST tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (path, body, query). The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming that the tool is for POST requests, which is expected from the name and schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it sends POST requests to the Meta Ads API for both creation and update operations. The verb '送信' (send) and resource 'POSTリクエスト' (POST request) are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like GET and DELETE.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for creating and updating resources but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_ads_api_get or meta_ads_api_delete. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server