Meta Ads MCP

update_adset

Modify Meta Ads ad set configurations including budgets, targeting, frequency caps, and bid strategies to optimize campaign performance.

Instructions

Update an ad set with new settings including frequency caps and budgets.

Args:
    adset_id: Meta Ads ad set ID
    frequency_control_specs: List of frequency control specifications 
                             (e.g. [{"event": "IMPRESSIONS", "interval_days": 7, "max_frequency": 3}])
    bid_strategy: Bid strategy (e.g., 'LOWEST_COST_WITH_BID_CAP')
    bid_amount: Bid amount in account currency (in cents for USD)
    status: Update ad set status (ACTIVE, PAUSED, etc.)
    targeting: Complete targeting specifications (will replace existing targeting)
              (e.g. {"targeting_automation":{"advantage_audience":1}, "geo_locations": {"countries": ["US"]}})
    optimization_goal: Conversion optimization goal (e.g., 'LINK_CLICKS', 'CONVERSIONS', 'APP_INSTALLS', etc.)
    daily_budget: Daily budget in account currency (in cents) as a string
    lifetime_budget: Lifetime budget in account currency (in cents) as a string
    is_dynamic_creative: Enable/disable Dynamic Creative for this ad set.
    access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`adset_id`	Yes
`frequency_control_specs`	No
`bid_strategy`	No
`bid_amount`	No
`status`	No
`targeting`	No
`optimization_goal`	No
`daily_budget`	No
`lifetime_budget`	No
`is_dynamic_creative`	No
`access_token`	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. It states this is an update operation which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like: whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, whether partial updates are allowed (vs full replacement), or how the targeting parameter 'will replace existing targeting' affects the operation. The description provides some behavioral hints but misses critical mutation context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but the parameter documentation section is lengthy (though necessary given schema coverage). While each parameter explanation earns its place, the overall structure could be more concise by grouping related parameters or using bullet points. It's functional but not optimally streamlined.

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 (11 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description does substantial work. The parameter documentation is comprehensive, and the output schema will handle return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like error conditions, idempotency, or side effects.

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 with 11 parameters, adding significant semantic value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. Each parameter gets clear explanations, examples, and important details like currency units (cents), replacement behavior for targeting, and optional token usage. 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 the verb 'update' and resource 'ad set' with specific settings mentioned (frequency caps and budgets). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_adset' by focusing on updates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'update_ad' or 'update_campaign' beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_ad' or 'update_campaign'. The description mentions what parameters can be updated but provides no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or when this specific update operation is appropriate versus other update operations in the sibling set.

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