Apple Ads MCP

budget_orders_update

Update an existing Apple Ads budget order by editing fields like name, budget amount, dates, and buyer details.

Instructions

Update a budget order. Most fields are editable post-creation; status is read-only. v5 has no delete endpoint for budget orders.

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": {
      "budgetOrderId": "<budgetOrderId>",
      "bo": "<bo>"
    },
    "name": "budget_orders_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`budgetOrderId`	Yes
`bo`	Yes
`orgIds`	No
`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 the description bears full burden. It mentions status is read-only and that no delete endpoint exists, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, auth requirements, or error behaviors.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and add relevant notes. No unnecessary words, though the note about no delete endpoint is tangentially useful.

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 complexity of nested parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, partial update behavior, or how orgIds interact, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 coverage is low (25%), with only orgId having a description. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema shows, failing to explain the meaning or constraints of fields like budget or supplySources.

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 'Update a budget order' and adds that most fields are editable while status is read-only, distinguishing it from read-only operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create or list tools.

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 implies usage for modifying existing budget orders and warns that delete is not available, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create or other update tools for different entities.

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

Deploy Server