Delete Automated Ad Rule
meta_delete_ad_ruleDelete an automated ad rule by providing its rule ID.
Instructions
Deletes an automated ad rule.
Args:
rule_id (string): Ad rule ID
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes |
meta_delete_ad_ruleDelete an automated ad rule by providing its rule ID.
Deletes an automated ad rule.
Args:
rule_id (string): Ad rule ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'Deletes.' However, it adds no extra behavioral details such as whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects running ads using the rule, or what the response looks like (no output schema). The description does not contradict annotations.
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?
The description is concise with three lines including an Args section. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement: could be more structured for readability.
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 delete operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It lacks details about post-deletion effects (e.g., irreversible, impact on campaigns) and does not leverage the schema or annotations to enrich context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides 'Ad rule ID' which adds some meaning over the bare schema. However, it does not specify the format of the rule_id (e.g., numeric, string from API) or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_ad_rules).
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 uses a specific verb 'Deletes' and clearly identifies the resource as 'automated ad rule.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_create_ad_rule (creates), meta_get_ad_rule (gets), and meta_list_ad_rules (lists).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (rule must exist) or that meta_delete_ad_rule is for rules, not ads. The description lacks any context about proper invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/oliverames/meta-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server