Apple Ads MCP

adgroup_negative_keywords_update

Update ad group negative keywords in bulk using keyword IDs with optional text, match type, and status adjustments.

Instructions

Bulk-update ad-group-level negative keywords. Each entry must include id.

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>",
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "adgroup_negative_keywords_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaignId`	Yes
`adGroupId`	Yes
`keywords`	Yes
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Bulk-update', implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or behavior on partial failures. This is insufficient for a 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 short and to the point with two sentences. No unnecessary words. However, it could be considered under-specified given the tool's complexity.

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?

For a bulk update tool with four parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about error handling, partial success, idempotency, or expected behavior for each field. Sibling tools like 'adgroup_negative_keywords_create' have similar brevity, but this doesn't excuse the gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 25% (only orgId described). The description repeats the schema requirement that each entry must include 'id', adding no new meaning. It does not explain the purpose or constraints of 'text', 'matchType', or 'status', which have enums in the schema but no descriptions.

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 verb 'Bulk-update' and the resource 'ad-group-level negative keywords', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, find, get, and list. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 update vs alternatives (e.g., create or delete). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context about batch operations. The description only reiterates the required 'id' field.

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

Deploy Server