Meta Ads MCP

update_campaign

Modify an existing Meta Ads campaign's settings including name, status, budget, bid strategy, and objectives to optimize advertising performance.

Instructions

Update an existing campaign in a Meta Ads account.

Args:
    campaign_id: Meta Ads campaign ID
    access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided)
    name: New campaign name
    status: New campaign status (e.g., 'ACTIVE', 'PAUSED')
    special_ad_categories: List of special ad categories if applicable
    daily_budget: New daily budget in account currency (in cents) as a string. 
                 Set to empty string "" to remove the daily budget.
    lifetime_budget: New lifetime budget in account currency (in cents) as a string.
                    Set to empty string "" to remove the lifetime budget.
    bid_strategy: New bid strategy
    bid_cap: New bid cap in account currency (in cents) as a string
    spend_cap: New spending limit for the campaign in account currency (in cents) as a string
    campaign_budget_optimization: Enable/disable campaign budget optimization
    objective: New campaign objective (Note: May not always be updatable)
    use_adset_level_budgets: If True, removes campaign-level budgets to switch to ad set level budgets

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaign_id`	Yes
`access_token`	No
`name`	No
`status`	No
`special_ad_categories`	No
`daily_budget`	No
`lifetime_budget`	No
`bid_strategy`	No
`bid_cap`	No
`spend_cap`	No
`campaign_budget_optimization`	No
`objective`	No
`use_adset_level_budgets`	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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies mutation ('update') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or error handling. It does add some context about optional parameters and budget removal, but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a complex mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized for 13 parameters, using a clear 'Args:' section with bullet-like formatting. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though some explanations could be more concise (e.g., repetitive 'in account currency' phrases). Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and hints at behavioral aspects (e.g., optional token caching, update constraints). However, it lacks explicit guidance on usage context and full behavioral transparency.

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 adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., 'in cents as a string'), special cases (e.g., empty string to remove budgets), and constraints (e.g., 'may not always be updatable' for objective). 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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing campaign in a Meta Ads account.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('campaign'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'update_ad' or 'update_adset', which would require mentioning it's specifically for campaigns rather than ads or adsets.

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, constraints, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_campaign' or 'update_adset'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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