mcp-openai-ads

Get ad

get_ad

Read-only

Fetch full details of a specific ad, including creative, review, and appeal status, to manage or troubleshoot ads in a ChatGPT Ads account.

Instructions

Get full details of one ad, including creative, review and appeal status.

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": {
      "ad_id": "<ad_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ad"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No	Also return the full API object as JSON (targeting, bidding config, review details).
`ad_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope about what is returned (creative plus review and appeal status), but says nothing about the 'raw' expansion side effect or response size when raw is set, which is the one behavior an agent would want flagged.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned content. No filler, though it is short enough that a little more clarifying content might have been worthwhile.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names what detail is returned and the annotations cover safety. It is incomplete regarding ad_id semantics and the behavior of the raw flag, which the description never references despite it being a declared parameter.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: 'raw' is documented in the schema but 'ad_id' carries no description anywhere. The description does not state the ad_id format or identifier source, nor clarify when to set raw, so it leaves half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of one ad') and enumerates the content returned (creative, review and appeal status), which distinguishes it from list_ads. It does not, however, contrast itself with adjacent single-entity readers like get_campaign or get_ad_group, so sibling differentiation relies mostly on the name.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer this over list_ads (to fetch one known ad) or preview_ad (to render an ad), nor any prerequisite such as needing a known ad_id first.

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

Deploy Server