Validate interest names or Facebook IDs to confirm their existence for Meta Ads targeting. Provide either a list of names or IDs to get validation results.
Validate a list of interests by name or Facebook ID. At least one of interestList or interestFbidList must be provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interestList | No | Interest names to validate | |
| interestFbidList | No | Interest Facebook IDs to validate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the 'at least one' requirement but does not explain what 'validate' means in terms of side effects (e.g., is it read-only?), what happens on invalid inputs, or what the response structure looks like. It also does not clarify whether both lists can be provided simultaneously or how they interact.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and the critical constraint without any waste. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It lacks information about the return value (e.g., does it return a boolean, a list of valid/invalid items?), error handling, or any side effects. For a validation tool, the agent needs to know what to do with the result, and this is missing.
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 schema already describes both parameters clearly ('Interest names to validate' and 'Interest Facebook IDs to validate'), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds the constraint about at least one being required, which is not in the schema (no required fields), so it does add some value. However, it does not provide additional meaning about the parameters themselves beyond what the schema states.
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 clearly states the tool's action (validate) and resource (interests) with the method (by name or Facebook ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like searchInterests (which searches/disovers) and getInterestSuggestions (which suggests), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 description mentions the key usage constraint that at least one of the two lists must be provided, which is essential for calling the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like searchInterests, nor does it provide any context about typical validation scenarios or prerequisites. The distinction is implied but not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.