Meta Ads MCP

get_campaigns

Retrieve and filter Meta Ads campaigns by status and objective to manage advertising performance across Facebook and Instagram.

Instructions

Get campaigns for a Meta Ads account with optional filtering.

Note: By default, the Meta API returns a subset of available fields. 
Other fields like 'effective_status', 'special_ad_categories', 
'lifetime_budget', 'spend_cap', 'budget_remaining', 'promoted_object', 
'source_campaign_id', etc., might be available but require specifying them
in the API call (currently not exposed by this tool's parameters).

Args:
    account_id: Meta Ads account ID (format: act_XXXXXXXXX)
    access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)
    limit: Maximum number of campaigns to return (default: 10)
    status_filter: Filter by effective status (e.g., 'ACTIVE', 'PAUSED', 'ARCHIVED').
                   Maps to the 'effective_status' API parameter, which expects an array
                   (this function handles the required JSON formatting). Leave empty for all statuses.
    objective_filter: Filter by campaign objective(s). Can be a single objective string or a list of objectives.
                     Valid objectives: 'OUTCOME_AWARENESS', 'OUTCOME_TRAFFIC', 'OUTCOME_ENGAGEMENT',
                     'OUTCOME_LEADS', 'OUTCOME_SALES', 'OUTCOME_APP_PROMOTION'.
                     Examples: 'OUTCOME_LEADS' or ['OUTCOME_LEADS', 'OUTCOME_SALES'].
                     Leave empty for all objectives.
    after: Pagination cursor to get the next set of results

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	Yes
`access_token`	No
`limit`	No
`status_filter`	No
`objective_filter`	No
`after`	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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), notes API limitations (default fields vs. available fields), explains pagination ('after' parameter), and mentions token caching. It doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by a note on API limitations, then detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the API note could be slightly more concise. It efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining inputs and behaviors. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be described. It covers filtering, pagination, and API quirks, though it could mention error cases or rate limits for full completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so excellently: each parameter is explained with semantics, formats (e.g., 'act_XXXXXXXXX'), defaults, examples, and usage notes. It clarifies complex behaviors like JSON formatting for 'status_filter' and array/string handling for 'objective_filter', adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get campaigns for a Meta Ads account with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('campaigns'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_campaign_details' by focusing on listing/filtering rather than retrieving details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing tools like 'get_ads' or 'get_adsets'.

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 usage through the mention of 'optional filtering' and the detailed parameter explanations, suggesting this tool is for retrieving campaigns with specific criteria. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_campaign_details' for individual campaigns or 'search' for broader queries. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are stated.

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