Apple Ads MCP

budget_orders_create

Create a budget order for LOC accounts. Specify budget amount, currency, dates, and org IDs to allocate advertising spend.

Instructions

Create a budget order (LOC accounts only). Wraps Apple's {bo, orgIds} envelope.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "budget": "<budget>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>",
      "orgIds": "<orgIds>"
    },
    "name": "budget_orders_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`budget`	Yes
`startDate`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD.
`endDate`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD.
`primaryBuyerEmail`	No
`primaryBuyerName`	No
`billingEmail`	No
`clientName`	No
`orderNumber`	No
`supplySources`	No
`orgIds`	Yes	Apple currently supports exactly one orgId per budget order.
`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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' implying mutation, but does not detail side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains. Insufficient transparency for a creation tool.

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 two sentences (12 words) and front-loads the core action and constraint. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary content.

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's complexity (12 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks critical details such as return value, error conditions, prerequisites, or validation rules. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 low (33%), but the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond listing the tool's action. The description does not compensate for the gap, leaving many parameters without semantic guidance.

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 (create) and resource (budget order), includes a specific constraint (LOC accounts only), and mentions wrapping Apple's envelope. It is distinct from sibling budget_orders_get/list/update.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a usage restriction (LOC accounts only) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like budget_orders_update, nor does it include when-not-to-use or explicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server