LinkedIn Ads MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List hosted tools

list_hosted_tools

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the tools available on the hosted LinkedIn Ads MCP server with a one-line summary of each, so you can see what an agent can do after connecting, like creating campaigns or pulling reports.

Instructions

List the tools of the hosted LinkedIn Ads MCP server by AdKit (https://mcp.adkit.so/linkedin-ads), with one line on what each tool does. Use this to explain what an agent can do with ad accounts after connecting, such as creating campaigns, pulling performance or uploading media. Returns a Markdown table. It does not call those tools; they only run on the hosted server.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_hosted_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add what they cannot: the source URL, the Markdown table return format, and the key caveat that listed tools only execute on the hosted server and are not called here.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output format, then the scope caveat. Wording is efficient with no filler, though the caveat and the output-format sentence could be merged without loss.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, return format, and execution boundary — everything an agent needs before calling it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies with no offsetting gaps.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("List the tools of the hosted LinkedIn Ads MCP server") and adds the output shape ("one line on what each tool does"), which no sibling (list_ad_platforms, get_faq, get_setup_guide) overlaps with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete when-to-use case ("Use this to explain what an agent can do with ad accounts after connecting") and a boundary (it does not invoke the listed tools). It stops short of naming any alternative or exclusion, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server