Create a new product catalog for a Meta ad account by specifying a name, optional vertical, and account ID.
Create a new product catalog for the ad account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Catalog name | |
| vertical | No | Catalog vertical: commerce, hotels, flights, destinations, home_listings, vehicles | |
| account_id | No | Ad account ID to create the catalog in (e.g. 'act_123' or '123'). Falls back to META_AD_ACCOUNT_ID env var if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Input schema / properties / account_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Ad account ID to create the catalog in (e.g. 'act_123' or '123'). Falls back to META_AD_ACCOUNT_ID env var if omitted.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies this as a create operation and scopes it to an ad account, but it does not disclose required permissions, duplicate-name handling, side effects, or what happens on success or failure.
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 with no wasted words. Its brevity suits a simple create tool whose parameter details are handled by the schema.
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 simple 3-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, and because no output schema exists, it also does not indicate what a successful creation returns.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, vertical values, and the account_id fallback behavior. The description only adds the phrase "for the ad account," which is marginal beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a new product catalog," and scopes it to "the ad account." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling catalog tools like list_catalogs, get_catalog, or update_catalog.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_catalogs or update_catalog. It implies creation, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the conditions under which a new catalog should be created.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.