Skip to main content
Glama
mikusnuz

meta-ads-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_images

Access all image assets within your advertising account. Retrieve a complete inventory of uploaded ad images to monitor and manage your creative content.

Instructions

List ad images uploaded to the ad account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNoPagination cursor for next page
limitNoNumber of results (default 25)
fieldsNoComma-separated fields to return
account_idNoAd account ID to query (e.g. 'act_123' or '123'). Falls back to META_AD_ACCOUNT_ID env var if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id
      Added 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"
+}
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: 'List' implies a read, but there is no statement about pagination behavior, result ordering, scoping to the account, or required permissions. The only behavioral signal is the implicit read-only nature of 'List'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tight sentence with no filler and the scope front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here reflects under-specification as much as discipline.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover pagination, scoping, and return shape. It covers none of these, leaving gaps that the structured fields only partially fill.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description says nothing about the four parameters (after, limit, fields, account_id) and adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is fully self-documenting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ad images uploaded to the ad account'), which is clear enough to separate it from write siblings like upload_image and delete_image. However, it never names get_image or explains the collection-vs-single distinction, so differentiation is left implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_image for a single image or list_creatives for creative-level data. The agent must infer the correct tool 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools