Skip to main content
Glama
pipeboard-co

Meta Ads MCP

by pipeboard-co
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

get_login_link

Generate a clickable login link for Meta Ads authentication. Use it with your Facebook App ID to authorize access and manage campaigns securely.

Instructions

Get a clickable login link for Meta Ads authentication.

NOTE: This method requires your own Facebook app (META_APP_ID). If you would
rather not run one, use the hosted MCP at https://meta-ads.mcp.pipeboard.co/
instead, which authenticates with a Pipeboard API token.

Args:
    access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)

Returns:
    A clickable resource link for Meta authentication

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
access_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.112
  2. Removedv1.0.109
  3. Addedv1.0.105
  4. Removedv1.0.103
  5. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / access_token / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / access_token / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the external requirement (own Facebook app), the optional cached-token behavior, and the output type. It could state more about side effects or token expiration, but the key behavioral traits are transparent enough for a non-destructive auth helper.

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 compact and logically structured with sections for Args and Returns. The NOTE about the hosted MCP is useful context, though slightly tangential to actually invoking the tool. No filler or tautology.

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 auth-link tool with no required parameters, the description covers prerequisites, parameter behavior, and return value. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not the description's job. It could clarify how META_APP_ID is configured, but this is a minor gap.

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 0%, but the description documents the only parameter: access_token is optional and falls back to a cached token. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. It doesn't specify token format or source, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a concrete resource ('a clickable login link') and clearly scopes it to Meta Ads authentication. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling CRUD/ad tools, which perform mutations or data retrieval rather than auth-link generation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when this tool is appropriate: it requires the user's own Facebook app (META_APP_ID). It also names the alternative (hosted MCP with Pipeboard token) and gives the condition that selects it, so an agent can route correctly.

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