Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
meta-ads-mcp

meta-ads-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_rf_prediction

Delete a reach and frequency prediction in Meta Ads Manager. This action permanently removes the prediction.

Instructions

Delete a reach & frequency prediction. This action is irreversible.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prediction_id": "<prediction_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_rf_prediction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prediction_idYesPrediction ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key warning that the action is irreversible, which is significant. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, error handling, or permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical warning. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what it does and that it is irreversible. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could mention prerequisites or side effects for full comprehensiveness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (prediction_id) as 'Prediction ID to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('reach & frequency prediction'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_rf_prediction, create_rf_prediction, and get_rf_prediction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a reach & frequency prediction needs to be permanently removed, but it does not explicitly mention when-not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools