Skip to main content
Glama
swesmith-repos

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adset_idYes
frequency_control_specsNo
bid_strategyNo
bid_amountNo
statusNo
targetingNo
optimization_goalNo
daily_budgetNo
lifetime_budgetNo
is_dynamic_creativeNo
access_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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. While it mentions that targeting 'will replace existing targeting' (which is valuable behavioral information), it doesn't address critical aspects like: whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in 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 a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a tool with 11 parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary parameter context. The only minor improvement would be front-loading more critical behavioral information before the parameter details.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. The parameter documentation is excellent, but there are significant gaps in behavioral context (permissions, side effects, error conditions) and usage guidance. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but other critical contextual information is missing for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 excellent parameter semantics beyond what the input schema offers. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each of the 11 parameters with clear examples and context. For instance, it clarifies that bid_amount is 'in cents for USD', targeting 'will replace existing targeting', and provides concrete examples for frequency_control_specs, bid_strategy, and targeting. This adds substantial 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: 'Update an ad set with new settings including frequency caps and budgets.' This specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('ad set'), and scope ('new settings including frequency caps and budgets'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_ad or update_campaign, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like update_ad, update_ad_creative, and update_campaign available, there's no indication of when this specific ad set update tool is appropriate versus those other update operations. The description also lacks information about prerequisites or constraints.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/swesmith-repos/pipeboard-co__meta-ads-mcp.36128861'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server