Fetch ad creatives from a Meta ad account to inspect creative assets, filter returned fields, set result limits, and paginate through results.
List ad creatives in the ad account.
| 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 | |
| account_id | No | Ad account ID to query (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 query (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, yet it only states the basic action. It discloses nothing about pagination behavior, return volume, ordering, or rate limits for what is presumably a large collection endpoint.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 list tool whose four parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description is minimally adequate. There is no output schema, and the description offers nothing about return shape or usage context, leaving gaps for an agent deciding between this and get_creative.
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%, with after, limit, fields, and account_id each documented including the env-var fallback. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (ad creatives) scoped to the ad account, which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_creative or create_creative, so the agent gets no differentiation help.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the single-creative alternative get_creative, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.