mcp-meta-ad-library-monitor
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| APIFY_TOKEN | Yes | Your Apify API token |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| find_meta_adsA | Search the Meta Ad Library for a company's ads through Facebook's sanctioned Graph API and return ONE FLAT ROW PER AD with creative text, headline, delivery dates, the Meta surfaces it ran on and Meta's permanent snapshot URL for the rendered ad. COVERAGE IS NOT UNIVERSAL: the Ad Library holds all ads only in the EU and only political and issue ads elsewhere, so a commercial advertiser outside the EU is legitimately absent and every row carries a coverage note saying what the search could have found. Requires the CALLER's own Meta app access token. Impressions and spend exist for political ads only and arrive as bands, so a null there is not zero spend. Read only; requires an APIFY_TOKEN and consumes Apify credits per call. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of misselection — an agent will always choose find_meta_ads. Its purpose is clearly described and its output format is explicit, so there is zero ambiguity in tool choice.
The single tool name follows the standard verb_noun snake_case convention (find_meta_ads), which is clean and conventional. However, one tool cannot demonstrate consistency 'throughout' a set, so the pattern is plausible but unproven rather than fully established.
One tool feels thin for a server presenting itself as an ad-library 'monitor.' That said, find_meta_ads is substantial and covers a full search-and-retrieve workflow, so it is not the trivial single-tool extreme case.
The tool thoroughly covers the core search workflow — creative details, delivery dates, surfaces, snapshot URL, and coverage caveats — and is honest about API limitations. However, the 'monitor' framing implies ongoing tracking or follow-up capabilities that are absent: no fetch-by-ID, no time-based comparison, and no way to manage watched advertisers, which an agent cannot work around.