Apple Ads MCP

creatives_create

Create a product page or creative set reference with name, app ID, and type to bind ads via creativeId.

Instructions

Create a creative (a reference to a default product page, custom product page, or creative set). Ads bind to creatives via creativeId.

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>",
      "adamId": "<adamId>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "creatives_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`adamId`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`productPageId`	No	Required when type=CUSTOM_PRODUCT_PAGE.
`extra`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the fact that it creates a resource. For example, it does not mention mutability, idempotency, required permissions, error conditions, or 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the key action and definition. However, it could be more structured with a summary of parameters or usage.

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 6 parameters (including nested objects and conditional fields) and no output schema, the description falls short. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how parameters like 'type' affect behavior.

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 schema covers 33% of parameters with descriptions (productPageId and orgId). The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the general statement about creatives. It does not clarify the role of name, adamId, type, or extra.

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 the tool creates a creative and defines it as a reference to a default product page, custom product page, or creative set. It also explains that ads bind to creatives via creativeId, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like creatives_find or creatives_get.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a creative versus using existing ones. It lacks contextual cues like prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server