Amazon Ads MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

amazon ads create report

amazon_ads_create_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Request asynchronous Amazon Ads performance reports for Sponsored Products, Brands, and Display with a chosen attribution window, then retrieve results later using the returned job token.

Instructions

Request an asynchronous Amazon performance report: Sponsored Products campaigns, ad groups, placements, search terms or advertised products; Brands campaigns, ads or search terms; Display campaigns or products. Brands legacy campaign reports exclude multi-ad-group campaigns. Does not change advertising or budgets. Choose the attribution window explicitly, keep jobToken and call amazon_ads_get_report later. No polling loop, no cross-platform attribution and no automatic sums.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`endDate`	Yes	Last day of the report, YYYY-MM-DD, at most 30 days after startDate.
`timeUnit`	No	Daily rows, or one aggregate row per grouping over the requested range.	DAILY
`accountId`	Yes	Advertising profile ID listed in AMAZON_ADS_PROFILE_IDS, such as 1234567890. The region-qualified form used by hosted getmcpads, such as EU:1234567890, is accepted when its region matches AMAZON_ADS_REGION.
`startDate`	Yes	First day of the report, YYYY-MM-DD, in the profile timezone.
`reportType`	No	Native report type. sp* reports cover Sponsored Products, sb* Sponsored Brands and sd* Sponsored Display.	spCampaigns
`attributionDays`	Yes	Native click attribution window in days for purchases and sales. Brands and Display accept 14 only. Never compare different windows as equivalent.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Original tool result: parsed JSON when the text is JSON, otherwise the text or multiple MCP content blocks. Provider fields depend on the selected query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's value is in the async lifecycle (jobToken, no polling, retrieve later), the caveat that Brands legacy campaign reports exclude multi-ad-group campaigns, and the warning not to compare attribution windows as equivalent. These are real behavioral constraints not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the workflow instruction, then caveats; no filler sentences. The trailing negative list ('no polling loop, no cross-platform attribution...') is compressed to the point of being terse, but it is information-dense rather than padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description already covers the async round-trip, the report scope limits, and attribution-window discipline. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly without opening other tools.

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% and already documents reportType, attributionDays constraints (Brands/Display accept 14 only) and date ranges. The description reinforces attribution-window choice but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request an asynchronous Amazon performance report') and enumerates the exact report families covered (SP campaigns/ad groups/placements/search terms/products, SB, SD). The follow-up sentence naming amazon_ads_get_report makes the boundary with that sibling unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs 'Choose the attribution window explicitly, keep jobToken and call amazon_ads_get_report later', which tells the agent both the required input discipline and the correct next tool. It also fences off misuse with 'No polling loop, no cross-platform attribution and no automatic sums' and 'Does not change advertising or budgets'.

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

Deploy Server