Apple Ads MCP

adgroups_update

Update an Apple Ads ad group by specifying only the fields you want to change. Modify bidding strategies, budgets, targeting, or status to optimize campaign performance.

Instructions

Update an ad group. Pass only the fields you want to change.

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>",
      "adGroup": "<adGroup>"
    },
    "name": "adgroups_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaignId`	Yes
`adGroupId`	Yes
`adGroup`	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 provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update' implying mutation but does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. Lack of disclosure beyond the operation itself.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste. However, given the complexity of the schema, a slightly expanded structure (e.g., noting partial update behavior) would be beneficial.

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?

With a complex input schema (nested objects, 4 params) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the partial update behavior beyond a brief hint. Incomplete for effective use.

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 has a description). The tool description adds no meaning to individual parameters; the phrase 'Pass only the fields you want to change' is generic. The schema itself has richer descriptions in nested objects, but the tool description does not leverage or summarize them.

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 'Update an ad group' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (ad group). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create, delete, find, etc.

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?

The description only says 'Pass only the fields you want to change,' which is a usage hint but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adgroups_create or other update tools. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server