LinkedIn Ads MCP Server

list_campaign_groups

List all campaign groups in your LinkedIn ad account, returning names, statuses, and budgets. Filter by status or account ID to refine results.

Instructions

List all campaign groups in the ad account. Returns names, statuses, budgets.

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_campaign_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`accountId`	No	Override ad account URN (defaults to env LINKEDIN_AD_ACCOUNT_ID)
`status`	No	Filter by status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation, which is clear. However, it omits details like pagination, sorting, or potential limits. The behavior is minimally disclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no waste. It could be structured with bullet points for the return fields, but it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description mentions return fields. It is fairly complete, though it could mention if paginated or if all results return at once.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., accountId for override, status filter).

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'List all campaign groups in the ad account.' It also specifies the return fields (names, statuses, budgets), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, get single campaign group.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like `get_campaign_group` for a single group or `list_campaigns` for campaigns. No exclusions or context of use.

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