Apple Ads MCP

ads_delete

Delete an ad from an Apple Ads campaign and ad group using its campaign, ad group, and ad identifiers.

Instructions

Delete an ad.

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>",
      "adId": "<adId>"
    },
    "name": "ads_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaignId`	Yes
`adGroupId`	Yes
`adId`	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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description implies a destructive action but does not disclose any side effects, irreversibility, or required permissions. With no annotations to compensate, the description 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (3 words) but lacks structure or front-loading of critical information. It is concise but at the expense of informativeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically insufficient. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or how the request is processed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25% (only orgId has a description). The description adds no explanation for campaignId, adGroupId, or adId, leaving the agent without semantic context for these required parameters.

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 'Delete an ad' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from other ad operations like create or update. However, it lacks detail on how the ad is identified (requires campaignId, adGroupId, adId), which is provided only in the schema.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ads_delete' is redundant but siblings like 'ads_update' or 'ads_create' exist. No context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server