Retrieve all ad sets belonging to a specific campaign by providing the campaign ID. Returns configurable fields and supports pagination.
Get all ad sets belonging to a specific campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Pagination cursor for next page | |
| limit | No | Number of results (default 25) | |
| fields | No | Comma-separated fields to return | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('get') and scopes it to a campaign, but it does not mention pagination behavior despite the presence of 'after' and 'limit' parameters, nor does it clarify that 'all' may be subject to pagination. This lack of detail leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
A single, clear sentence delivers the core purpose with no redundancy. It is perfectly sized and front-loaded, earning a top score.
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 tool is simple, but the description lacks details about pagination (especially the 'after' cursor and 'limit' parameter) and how 'all' adsets are returned. Since there is no output schema, the description should have mentioned these behavioral aspects to be fully complete for an agent.
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 all parameters. The description adds only minimal context (the 'specific campaign' maps to campaign_id) and does not enhance understanding of fields, pagination, or limits beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving all ad sets for a specific campaign. The verb 'get' and resource 'ad sets' with scope 'belonging to a specific campaign' effectively distinguishes it from siblings like list_adsets or get_campaign_ads.
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 implies usage (use when you need all adsets for a campaign) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_adsets or get_campaign_ads. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.