Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Ads MCP Server

Microsoft Ads MCP Server

by adkit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List hosted tools

list_hosted_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the tools on the hosted Microsoft Ads MCP server by AdKit, with one line on what each does so you can see which ad-account actions an agent can perform.

Instructions

List the tools of the hosted Microsoft Ads MCP server by AdKit (https://mcp.adkit.so/microsoft-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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the non-obvious behavioral fact that it 'does not call those tools; they only run on the hosted server,' plus the return format (Markdown table). It says nothing about paging, size limits, or whether the list can change, so it only adds modest context.

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?

Everything is front-loaded: the purpose comes first, then the usage context, then examples, then the return format and the no-side-effect caveat. Every sentence adds information (URL, examples, Markdown output, non-invocation), and nothing is repeated from the annotations or the schema.

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?

There are no params and no output schema, so the description has to carry the return-value information itself, and it does ('Returns a Markdown table'). It also explains the relationship to the hosted tools and that they are only described, not invoked, which is everything the agent needs to call this safely.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the description does not have to compensate for anything. That earns the baseline 4 for a no-arg tool.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the tools of the hosted Microsoft Ads MCP server') and pins down the scope further with 'by AdKit (https://mcp.adkit.so/microsoft-ads), with one line on what each tool does.' That is concrete enough to separate it from the other inventory/metadata siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a clear trigger — 'Use this to explain what an agent can do with ad accounts after connecting' — and lists example capabilities (creating campaigns, pulling performance, uploading media). It does not spell out when to choose a different sibling instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools