Meta Ads MCP

create_ad_creative

Generate new Meta Ads creatives using uploaded images, specifying headlines, descriptions, call-to-action buttons, and dynamic creative testing options.

Instructions

Create a new ad creative using an uploaded image hash.

Args:
    account_id: Meta Ads account ID (format: act_XXXXXXXXX)
    image_hash: Hash of the uploaded image
    access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)
    name: Creative name
    page_id: Facebook Page ID to be used for the ad
    link_url: Destination URL for the ad
    message: Ad copy/text
    headline: Single headline for simple ads (cannot be used with headlines)
    headlines: List of headlines for dynamic creative testing (cannot be used with headline)
    description: Single description for simple ads (cannot be used with descriptions)
    descriptions: List of descriptions for dynamic creative testing (cannot be used with description)
    dynamic_creative_spec: Dynamic creative optimization settings
    call_to_action_type: Call to action button type (e.g., 'LEARN_MORE', 'SIGN_UP', 'SHOP_NOW')
    lead_gen_form_id: Lead generation form ID for lead generation campaigns. Required when using
                     lead generation CTAs like 'SIGN_UP', 'GET_OFFER', 'SUBSCRIBE', etc.
    instagram_actor_id: Optional Instagram account ID for Instagram placements

Returns:
    JSON response with created creative details

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	Yes
`image_hash`	Yes
`access_token`	No
`name`	No
`page_id`	No
`link_url`	No
`message`	No
`headline`	No
`headlines`	No
`description`	No
`descriptions`	No
`dynamic_creative_spec`	No
`call_to_action_type`	No
`lead_gen_form_id`	No
`instagram_actor_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a creation/mutation operation and mentions some constraints (e.g., parameter exclusivity rules), but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements beyond the optional access_token, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when creation fails. It provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. While comprehensive for 15 parameters, every sentence serves a purpose - no redundant information. The opening purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by organized parameter documentation.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, creation operation) and absence of annotations, the description does substantial work. It documents all parameters thoroughly and mentions the return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (auth, errors, limits) which prevents a perfect score.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage for 15 parameters, the description provides extensive parameter documentation that fully compensates for the schema gap. It explains each parameter's purpose, format requirements (e.g., 'format: act_XXXXXXXXX'), constraints (e.g., exclusivity rules between headline/headlines), and contextual relationships (e.g., lead_gen_form_id requirements for specific CTAs). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Create a new ad creative') and resource ('using an uploaded image hash'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_ad' or 'update_ad_creative'. The opening sentence provides a complete purpose statement that goes beyond just restating the tool name.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_ad' or 'update_ad_creative'. While it mentions some parameter constraints (e.g., 'cannot be used with headlines'), it doesn't offer contextual guidance about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or tool selection criteria.

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