Meta Ads by Get MCP Ads

meta get study results

meta_get_study_results

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve conversion lift or A/B test study results, including objectives, test cells, and lift metrics. Provide an Ad Study ID to access the breakdown.

Instructions

Get detailed results for a conversion lift or A/B test study. Returns objectives, cells, and lift results.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`studyId`	Yes	The Ad Study ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Original tool result: parsed JSON when the text is JSON, otherwise the text or multiple MCP content blocks. Provider fields depend on the selected query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 30, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "properties": {},
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {},
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv2.0.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds only a partial view of what is returned (objectives, cells, lift results), with no mention of permissions, scoping to an ad account, data freshness, or error behavior for an invalid study ID.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the capability stated first and the return contents second; no filler. The second sentence slightly overlaps the existing output schema, so it earns only partial credit, but the description is appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a single well-documented parameter, full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description needs only to say what the tool fetches, which it does. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation in a crowded namespace containing meta_get_ad_studies and meta_interpret_experiment_results, which could lead an agent to pick the wrong tool.

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?

There is a single parameter, studyId, at 100% schema description coverage ('The Ad Study ID'), so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds nothing about ID format, provenance (where to obtain the ID), or whether the study must belong to the current ad account. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('detailed results') and narrows scope to conversion lift or A/B test studies, and lists the result sections (objectives, cells, lift results). An agent can tell it retrieves results rather than study metadata. However, it never names the closely related siblings meta_get_ad_studies (list studies) or meta_interpret_experiment_results, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: it applies to conversion lift and A/B test studies, so an agent can infer it needs a studyId from an existing study. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. must first call meta_get_ad_studies to obtain an ID), and no guidance on when to prefer meta_interpret_experiment_results instead.

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

Deploy Server