LinkedIn Ads MCP Server

get_creative_analytics

Retrieve creative-level performance analytics for a LinkedIn ad campaign. Use campaign ID and date range to get metrics at daily, monthly, or aggregate granularity.

Instructions

Pull performance metrics at the creative/ad level.

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>",
      "dateRange": "<dateRange>"
    },
    "name": "get_creative_analytics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`campaignId`	Yes
`dateRange`	Yes
`granularity`	No	ALL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only operation by stating 'pull', but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of important details; it could be slightly longer to include parameter usage or return format without being verbose.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters including a nested object, and no output schema. The description does not explain what 'performance metrics' are included, how to specify the dateRange, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity, the description is severely incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names (campaignId, dateRange, granularity). There is no explanation of what each parameter does or how to use them, leaving the agent uninformed.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves performance metrics at the creative/ad level. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from other tools like get_creative (details) and get_campaign_analytics (campaign-level), though it does not explicitly mention sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_campaign_analytics or get_account_summary. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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