OQVA Marketing MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

meta_list_campaigns

List Meta ad account campaigns with status, budget, and dates to identify and clean up inactive or underperforming campaigns.

Instructions

[Meta] List campaigns on an ad account (id, name, status, effective_status, objective, budget, dates). NOTE: daily_budget/lifetime_budget are in the currency's MINOR unit (cents/pence — ÷100). The core tool for finding dead/clutter campaigns.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "meta_list_campaigns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`adAccountId`	No	act_<id>; defaults to META_AD_ACCOUNT_ID.
`limit`	No	Default 200.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the minor unit for budgets, which is important, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, rate limits, or read-only nature. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is brief (two sentences plus a note), front-loads the purpose, and includes a critical warning without extraneous text. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, fields returned, and a unit caveat. It does not discuss pagination or edge cases, but overall is sufficient for typical use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds the important note about budget minor units, which is not in the schema. However, the parameters themselves (adAccountId, limit) are already well-documented in the schema, so the description adds moderate extra value.

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 'List campaigns on an ad account' with specific fields (id, name, status, etc.) and explicitly calls it 'the core tool for finding dead/clutter campaigns,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like meta_ad_insights or meta_update_campaign.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies this is the go-to tool for listing campaigns for management purposes ('finding dead/clutter campaigns'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. It provides reasonable context for selection among siblings.

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