Apple Ads MCP

adgroup_negative_keywords_list

Retrieve paginated lists of negative keywords assigned to an ad group in Apple Ads.

Instructions

List ad-group-level negative keywords (paginated).

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": {
      "campaignId": "<campaignId>",
      "adGroupId": "<adGroupId>"
    },
    "name": "adgroup_negative_keywords_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaignId`	Yes
`adGroupId`	Yes
`limit`	No	Max items per page. Apple's hard cap is 1000 for most endpoints.
`offset`	No	Result offset for pagination.
`orgId`	No	Override the org (account) for this call. Defaults to ASA_ORG_ID. Use the `org_acls` tool to discover orgIds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions pagination, omitting details like default ordering, required permissions, or effects of missing pagination parameters. The minimal detail is insufficient.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the verb. It imparts purpose and a key behavioral note (paginated) without wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of an output schema and moderate parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, pagination metadata, or how it differs from 'adgroup_negative_keywords_find', leaving gaps for correct agent usage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

While 60% of parameters have schema descriptions, the tool's description adds no extra meaning. It does not explain the crucial 'campaignId' and 'adGroupId' parameters or their relationship, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 ('List') and resource ('ad-group-level negative keywords') with a key feature ('paginated'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get' (single) and 'find' (search).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adgroup_negative_keywords_get' for a single result or 'adgroup_negative_keywords_find' for filtered searches. The description lacks context for selection.

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

Deploy Server