LinkedIn Ads MCP Server

bulk_create_campaign_groups

Create up to 100 campaign groups in bulk with unique names, budgets, and schedules. Returns IDs of all created groups.

Instructions

Queue and execute bulk creation of campaign groups (up to 100). Each item can have unique names, budgets, and schedules. Executes sequentially with rate limiting. Returns a summary with IDs of all created groups.

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": {
      "groups": "<groups>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_create_campaign_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`groups`	Yes
`dryRun`	No	If true, validates without creating

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses sequential execution and rate limiting, and mentions return of summary with IDs. However, it does not cover error handling, idempotency, or whether partial success can occur.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, constraints, execution behavior, and output summary. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity (array of nested objects, budgets, schedules) and lack of output schema, the description covers creation limits, execution order, and output format. However, it could add more detail on error scenarios and validation behavior beyond the dryRun hint.

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 has no descriptions for most fields (only dryRun). The description adds context about unique names, budgets, and schedules, but does not explain the structure of budget or schedule objects beyond what schema provides. Schema coverage is 50% (dryRun described), so description adds marginal value.

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 explicitly states it handles bulk creation of campaign groups up to 100, with clear verb ('Queue and execute bulk creation') and resource ('campaign groups'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign_group (single) and other bulk creation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description implies bulk creation for efficiency but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_campaign_group (single) or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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