Meta Ads MCP

update_ad_creative

Modify existing Meta Ads creative content and settings to improve campaign performance through updated copy, headlines, descriptions, or call-to-action elements.

Instructions

Update an existing ad creative with new content or settings.

Args:
    creative_id: Meta Ads creative ID to update
    access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)
    name: New creative name
    message: New ad copy/text
    headline: Single headline for simple ads (cannot be used with headlines)
    headlines: New list of headlines for dynamic creative testing (cannot be used with headline)
    description: Single description for simple ads (cannot be used with descriptions)
    descriptions: New list of descriptions for dynamic creative testing (cannot be used with description)
    dynamic_creative_spec: New dynamic creative optimization settings
    call_to_action_type: New call to action button type
    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.

Returns:
    JSON response with updated creative details

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`creative_id`	Yes
`access_token`	No
`name`	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

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. The 'Returns' section mentions JSON response but lacks detail on success/failure patterns. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. Each parameter explanation is concise yet informative. The opening sentence clearly states the tool's purpose. However, the parameter section is quite long (11 items), which is necessary given the complexity but affects overall brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations), the description does well on parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should address mutation-specific concerns like permissions, idempotency, and error handling. The parameter documentation is comprehensive, but behavioral transparency gaps remain.

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?

The description provides extensive parameter documentation beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains creative_id is the 'Meta Ads creative ID to update', clarifies optionality of access_token, distinguishes between headline/headlines and description/descriptions with mutual exclusivity rules, explains lead_gen_form_id requirements for specific CTA types, and gives context for dynamic_creative_spec. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Update an existing ad creative with new content or settings' - a specific verb (update) and resource (ad creative). It distinguishes from siblings like create_ad_creative (creation vs update) and update_ad/adset/campaign (different resource types). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_ad_creatives or other read operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing creative), when to choose update_ad_creative over create_ad_creative, or how it relates to other update operations like update_ad. The only implicit guidance is in the name itself - updating vs creating.

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