Skip to main content
Glama
Microsoft Ads MCP Server

Microsoft Ads MCP Server

Get example prompts

get_example_prompts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve example prompts for Microsoft Ads reporting, optimization, and campaign launches when users ask what to try first or what to ask the agent; returns a Markdown list.

Instructions

Get example prompts that work with the hosted Microsoft Ads MCP server by AdKit, such as reporting, optimizing and launching campaigns. Use this when the user asks what to try first or what to ask the agent. Returns a Markdown list.

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": "get_example_prompts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's one added fact, 'Returns a Markdown list,' is genuinely useful return-format context but is the only behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to call it, and the response format. The usage trigger and return format are front-loaded with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 helper with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope of content, the triggering user question, and the response format. Nothing material is missing.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call, and the empty schema leaves no ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get example prompts that work with the hosted Microsoft Ads MCP server by AdKit,' and scopes the content to reporting, optimizing, and launching campaigns. It is distinguishable from get_faq and get_setup_guide by subject matter, though it does not name those siblings to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 trigger: 'Use this when the user asks what to try first or what to ask the agent.' That is a clear use context, but there are no exclusions telling an agent when to prefer get_faq or get_setup_guide instead.

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