LinkedIn Ads MCP Server

update_campaign

Update LinkedIn ad campaigns with best-practice enforcement to ensure compliance and optimize performance.

Instructions

Update a campaign. Re-applies best-practice enforcement.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "update_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`updates`	Yes

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?

The description mentions 'best-practice enforcement' but fails to clarify what that entails (e.g., automatic modifications, validation rules, error conditions). No annotations exist to compensate, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, but it does not earn its place due to missing critical details. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague parameter schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, permissions, and the nature of best-practice enforcement, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'updates' object's allowed keys or value types. The 'id' parameter is trivial, but 'updates' requires elaboration on what fields are accepted and their formats.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('a campaign'), and adds 'Re-applies best-practice enforcement' for nuance. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like bulk_update_campaigns or update_campaign_group, which offer similar functionality.

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 (e.g., bulk_update_campaigns) or when not to use it. The context for usage is entirely implicit.

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