Apple Ads MCP

adgroups_list

Retrieve a paginated list of ad groups for a given campaign by providing its campaign ID.

Instructions

List all ad groups in a campaign (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>"
    },
    "name": "adgroups_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaignId`	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

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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions pagination but omits details on rate limits, authorization requirements, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single sentence that concisely captures the core functionality and pagination. No unnecessary words or irrelevant details.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain pagination details, return format, or how to handle errors, making it insufficient for complex use cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for this coverage level.

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 action (List), resource (ad groups), and scope (in a campaign), and mentions pagination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'adgroups_find_in_campaign', which likely performs a similar function.

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 'adgroups_find_in_campaign' or 'adgroups_get'. The description does not specify any prerequisites or 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