mcp-openai-ads

List ads

list_ads

Read-only

Retrieve ads with creative text, review status, and serving issues, optionally filtered by ad group. Use pagination and ordering to manage large result sets.

Instructions

List ads, optionally for one ad group, with creative text, review status and serving issues.

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_ads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`after`	No	Cursor: return results after this id (use last_id from the previous page).
`limit`	No	Page size (default 20, max 500).
`order`	No
`ad_group_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful output context (review status, serving issues), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite having cursor/limit parameters, and nothing about result volume or ordering defaults.

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 no filler; the resource, the optional filter, and the returned fields all come in one pass. Slightly dense but efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 5-parameter list tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: three parameters are undocumented anywhere, and pagination/ordering behavior is unstated. The returned-field mention is the only substantive addition.

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 40% (after and limit documented; name, order, ad_group_id undocumented). The description partially compensates by implying the ad_group_id filter, but leaves name, order, and pagination semantics entirely unaddressed. It adds little beyond the schema.

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 ('List ads') plus the optional scope ('for one ad group') and the fields returned (creative text, review status, serving issues). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_ad, though it never names it.

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 says the ad-group filter is optional but gives no guidance on when to use list_ads versus get_ad, preview_ad, or list_ad_groups. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server