mcp-openai-ads

Get ad group

get_ad_group

Read-only

Fetch full details of a single ad group by ID, with optional raw API JSON for targeting, bidding, and review data.

Instructions

Get full details of one ad group.

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_group_id": "<ad_group_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ad_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 nothing beyond that - no mention of what 'full details' includes, whether the raw JSON payload is large, or any rate/auth context.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, a minimal description is defensible, but 'full details' is never unpacked - the agent cannot tell what fields are returned or how the raw flag changes the response.

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 coverage is only 50%: the 'raw' parameter is documented in the schema but ad_group_id is not. The description contributes no parameter information at all, so the undocumented required identifier is left to inference.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (ad group) and the scope 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_ad_groups. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or stating what distinguishes it from get_ad.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_ad_groups (for enumeration) or get_ad (for the parent creative). No prerequisites or conditions are given; the agent must infer usage entirely.

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

Deploy Server