meta-mcp

List ads

ads_list

Retrieve ads from a Facebook ad account, campaign, or ad set with support for filtering, field selection, and pagination.

Instructions

GET /{parent}/ads. parent.type selects the path: 'account' → /act_{id}/ads, 'campaign' → /{campaign_id}/ads, 'adset' → /{adset_id}/ads.

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": {
      "parent": "<parent>"
    },
    "name": "ads_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`parent`	Yes
`fields`	No
`filtering`	No
`effective_status`	No
`limit`	No
`auto_paginate`	No
`max_pages`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only reveals the HTTP method and path construction, but omits behavioral traits like pagination (auto_paginate, max_pages), rate limits, or side effects. Agent cannot infer safety or performance characteristics.

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?

Very concise single sentence with a mapping table. Front-loaded with HTTP method and path. However, could include more info without adding much length (e.g., brief parameter hints).

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?

Given 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, how to handle pagination, or provide examples. Agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description should explain parameters beyond parent. It does not describe fields, filtering, effective_status, limit, auto_paginate, or max_pages. While some are self-explanatory, filtering and effective_status need context for correct usage.

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 tool lists ads via a GET request and explains how the parent.type parameter selects the API path (account, campaign, adset). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adsets_list and adcreatives_list.

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 tool vs. alternatives. No mention of when to prefer other tools like ad_accounts_list or adsets_list. The description only provides path mapping, not usage context.

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