Validate Meta Ads API access by checking token metadata, listing accessible ad accounts, and warning about missing read scopes—without exposing your token.
Agent-ready read-only health check: validates token metadata, lists accessible ad accounts, and warns about missing read scopes without exposing the access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares the operation read-only and states that it does not expose the access token, which is exactly the safety context an agent needs when deciding to invoke this 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 sentence front-loads the core identity ('Agent-ready read-only health check') and then compresses all three key behaviors into a tight list. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers the essential functional scope: validation, account listing, and scope warnings. It does not describe the exact return shape, and with no output schema present that is a minor gap, but complexity is low enough that the description is still substantially complete.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. There is nothing additional the description needs to explain about parameter meaning or formatting.
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?
The description uses a specific, agent-relevant verb ('health check') and clearly enumerates three distinct behaviors: validating token metadata, listing accessible ad accounts, and warning about missing read scopes. It differentiates itself from siblings like meta_debug_token and meta_list_ad_accounts by presenting a composite diagnostic scope rather than a single resource operation.
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 'Agent-ready' suggests this is a preliminary setup/verification call, but the description never explicitly says when to use it over sibling tools such as meta_debug_token or meta_list_ad_accounts. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.