Meta MCP Server

List Ad Videos

meta_list_ad_videos

Read-only

Retrieve a list of videos from an ad account's video library, with options to limit results or paginate using a cursor.

Instructions

Lists videos in an ad account's video library.

Args:

ad_account_id (string): Ad account ID
limit (number): Max results (default 20)

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": {
      "ad_account_id": "<ad_account_id>"
    },
    "name": "meta_list_ad_videos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ad_account_id`	Yes
`limit`	No
`after`	No
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' for human-readable or 'json' for machine-readable	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.2Jun 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'video library' scope, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or return format, which are not covered by annotations.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a brief list of arguments. It is efficiently structured without unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more organized by including format or pagination notes.

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?

As a read-only list operation, the essential call parameters are present and the purpose is clear. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain what fields each video entry contains, and the 'after' pagination parameter is unexplained, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 only 25%, so the description carries responsibility. It explains ad_account_id and limit, but leaves 'after' completely undefined. The response_format parameter is only described in the schema. Thus it partially compensates for low schema coverage but with notable gaps.

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 'Lists videos in an ad account's video library', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_list_ad_images or meta_upload_ad_video without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies its use case (listing videos) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. There is no guidance on contexts where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server