Retrieve campaigns from a Meta ad account, filtering by status (active, paused, or all) and specifying the account by ID or name.
Get campaigns from an ad account. Supports filtering by status (ACTIVE, PAUSED, ALL). Account can be specified by ID (act_XXX) or by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter campaigns by status. Default: ALL | ALL |
| accountId | Yes | Ad account ID (act_XXX) or account name (e.g., "Plannit") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that filtering by status is supported and account can be an ID or name, but it doesn't disclose return shape, pagination, ordering, or the fact that this is a read-only operation (beyond the verb 'Get').
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?
Two tight sentences, no redundant phrasing, and the core action is front-loaded. Efficient.
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?
The schema handles parameter semantics, but the description omits any indication of return format or whether results are paginated, and it doesn't situate this tool against the many campaign siblings. For a simple list operation this is a minor but real gap.
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?
Input schema already documents both parameters including enum values and the act_XXX/name forms; the description mostly restates these facts without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.
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?
States a specific operation (Get campaigns from an ad account) and includes filtering and account-specification details. It is clearly a list-level tool, but it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with getCampaignDetails or other siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 guidance on when to choose this over getCampaignDetails, which likely retrieves a single campaign, or over other campaign management tools. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.