Apple Ads MCP

reports_adgroups

Generate ad-group-level performance reports for a campaign with flexible time ranges, granularity, filtering, and pivoting options.

Instructions

Ad-group-level report within a single campaign.

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>",
      "startTime": "<startTime>",
      "endTime": "<endTime>"
    },
    "name": "reports_adgroups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaignId`	Yes
`startTime`	Yes	Inclusive start. Format YYYY-MM-DD for DAILY/WEEKLY/MONTHLY, or ISO 8601 datetime for HOURLY.
`endTime`	Yes	Inclusive end.
`granularity`	No	Defaults to none (single aggregated row per entity).
`timeZone`	No	ORTZ = the org's reporting timezone.
`selector`	No	Selector controlling sort, filtering, and pagination of the report rows.
`groupBy`	No	Pivot the report along these dimensions.
`returnRecordsWithNoMetrics`	No
`returnRowTotals`	No
`returnGrandTotals`	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 and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. Only states what the tool does.

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?

Very concise single sentence, but lacks context that could be included without losing conciseness. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Description is grossly incomplete for a complex tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. Does not explain return values, constraints, or how to effectively use the report.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is high (64%), so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it is an ad-group-level report within a single campaign, using specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like reports_campaigns and reports_ads_in_campaign.

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. Lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions amidst many sibling report tools.

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

Deploy Server