TrueClicks

Execute Microsoft Ads report query

ms_ads_execute_report_query

Read-only

Execute a Microsoft Ads performance report query for one account over a date range, returning rows as TSV (tab-separated, header row + one row per line). Requires startDate, endDate and reportAggregation (performance data is time-bound). Covers metric reports over a date range, not entity/configuration snapshots (campaigns, ad groups, keywords with no metrics and no date range).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`report`	Yes	Microsoft Ads report name.
`columns`	Yes	Report columns to select.
`endDate`	Yes	Report end date (yyyy-MM-dd).
`accountId`	Yes	TrueClicks account id (the numeric Id field from the account listing, not the Microsoft customer id / ClientCustomerId). Must be a Microsoft account accessible by the connector.
`startDate`	Yes	Report start date (yyyy-MM-dd).
`predicates`	No	Optional filter predicates, each with a column Name and one or more Values.
`reportAggregation`	Yes	Report aggregation, e.g. "Summary", "Daily", "Weekly", "Monthly".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / accountId / description

Previous value: -"Ad platform account ID to query (must be a Microsoft account accessible by the connector)."New value: +"TrueClicks account id (the numeric Id field from the account listing, not the Microsoft customer id / ClientCustomerId). Must be a Microsoft account accessible by the connector."

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and non-destructive. The description adds transparency by specifying the TSV return format and by clarifying that it covers only performance reports, not config snapshots. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, well-structured, and free of redundant wording. It conveys the essential purpose, scope, required parameters, and output format in three clear sentences.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a report-execution tool: it states the input constraints, the output format, and the scope boundary. Since no output schema is provided and the schema descriptions are thorough, no critical invocation context is missing.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all parameters, including the important clarification about accountId and the optional predicates. The main description only reiterates that startDate, endDate, and reportAggregation are required, adding little beyond the schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Execute a Microsoft Ads performance report query'), the target resource ('for one account over a date range'), and the output format ('TSV'). It also distinguishes itself from entity/configuration snapshots, making its purpose unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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?

The description provides useful when-to-use guidance by explicitly indicating it covers metric reports over a date range and not entity/configuration snapshots. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like ms_ads_execute_bulk_query or ms_ads_reports_list, but the scope distinction is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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

All TrueClicks tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the audit and report tools (e.g., audit_rule_output_table vs audit_rule_output_table_historical vs audit_rule_result vs audit_rule_result_campaign) are closely related and rely on detailed descriptions to differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is generally consistent with snake_case and domain-prefixed groups (google_ads_*, ms_ads_*, perfmon_*), though a few tools are bare nouns (account, task, user) rather than verb-led, which slightly deviates from the dominant pattern.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is on the higher end but justified for a platform covering multiple ad platforms, audit reports, alerts, and user management; it remains navigable with clear groupings.

Completeness4/5

The tool set comprehensively covers account enumeration, audit results, report execution for major ad platforms, perfmon alerts, pacing targets, tasks, and users. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no create/update/modify operations), but the core analytics and monitoring surface is well covered.

Resources

Need Help?