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

meta-ads-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_rules

List automated rules for a Meta ad account to review existing rule-based ad automation. Supports pagination, field selection, and account ID fallback.

Instructions

List automated rules for the ad account.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNoPagination cursor for next page
limitNoNumber of results to return
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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the absence of annotations and usage context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple, read-only listing tool with four fully documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent without confirmation of read-only safety or return shape.

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 after, limit, fields, and account_id are all documented with semantics (including the env var fallback). The description adds no parameter detail beyond 'for the ad account', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (automated rules) scoped to the ad account. It is clearly distinguishable from get_rule, create_rule, and update_rule, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_rule for a single rule, or how it relates to create_rule/update_rule. The ad-account scoping is implied but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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