Apple Ads MCP

campaign_negative_keywords_update

Bulk update campaign-level negative keywords to refine ad targeting and exclude unwanted search terms.

Instructions

Bulk-update campaign-level negative keywords.

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>",
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "campaign_negative_keywords_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaignId`	Yes
`keywords`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Bulk-update' without explaining if it merges, replaces, or idempotently updates by id. It omits permission requirements, error handling, and side effects.

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 sentence with no filler, achieving conciseness. However, it is perhaps too terse, omitting important details that could be included without losing brevity.

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 performs a bulk update with nested objects and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain update semantics (merge vs replace), response format, or error scenarios, leaving an agent under-informed.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters, but only orgId has a description. The description does not elaborate on the meaning of campaignId or the keywords array structure (e.g., that 'id' is required for updating). Schema coverage is low at 33%, and the description adds no compensatory context.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('campaign-level negative keywords'), and the context of sibling tools (e.g., campaign_negative_keywords_create, delete, get) clearly distinguishes this tool for updating. However, it lacks nuance on whether the update is additive or replaces existing keywords.

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 campaign_negative_keywords_create or delete. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., campaign existence) or context for when this update is appropriate over other keyword operations.

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

Deploy Server