Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

LinkedIn Ads MCP by InsightfulPipe

by com.insightfulpipe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

LinkedIn Ads Execute Action

execute_action
Destructive

Execute LinkedIn Ads action (Step 3 (FINAL) of workflow).

REQUIRED: Complete these steps first using query_contexts:

  1. request='accounts' - Get workspace_id, brand_id, ad_account_id AND available_actions

  2. request='actions_details' with actions=['xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx', 'xxxxxx'] - Get detailed body structure for specific action(s) using actions from available_actions

IMPORTANT: Always call step 2 to see the exact body structure before executing.

Rely on info from steps 1-2 to construct the action body. Follow the schema exactly.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "execute_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful context (body must be derived from prior contexts, actions are enumerated) but never states irreversibility, rate limits, or what a bad body does to the ad account. Given a destructive tool, that is a meaningful remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, then the workflow steps, then the 'always call step 2' emphasis and the closing directive. Slightly redundant (step 2 is restated as IMPORTANT), but well structured with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. For a destructive, open-world, single free-form-body tool, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: how to obtain the correct body content before calling. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single `body` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is a free-form object, so the schema gives no guidance at all. The description only says to build it from steps 1-2 and 'follow the schema exactly', which points to the right source but never describes shape, required keys, or format. Partial compensation for a large gap.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Execute LinkedIn Ads action') and positions itself as the final step of a multi-step workflow, which no sibling tool does. It doesn't say what kinds of actions exist (create/update/pause), so an agent still needs query_contexts to learn the surface.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states prerequisites and the two required query_contexts calls before invoking, and names the sibling tool by name. It doesn't cover failure handling or when an agent should stop/abort, but the sequencing guidance is concrete and non-inferable.

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

All LinkedIn Ads MCP by InsightfulPipe toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources