Microsoft Advertising MCP server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bing get ads

bing_get_ads

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Microsoft Advertising ads with native creative assets, URLs, and status for a given account, campaign, and ad group, selecting which ad formats to return.

Instructions

Read ads with their native creative assets, URLs and status. adTypes controls which formats Microsoft returns.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "campaignId": "<campaignId>",
      "campaignType": "<campaignType>",
      "adGroupId": "<adGroupId>",
      "adTypes": "<adTypes>"
    },
    "name": "bing_get_ads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`adTypes`	Yes	Ad formats to return. Microsoft omits formats that are not listed.
`accountId`	Yes	Account ID listed in BING_ADS_ACCOUNT_IDS. Use the numeric ID, not the eight-character account number shown in the web app.
`adGroupId`	Yes	Numeric ad group ID in the selected campaign.
`campaignId`	Yes	Numeric campaign ID in the selected account.
`campaignType`	Yes	Native type of campaignId, used to verify that it belongs to the account. Dynamic Search campaigns use Search with DynamicSearchAdsSetting.

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.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1Oct 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "properties": {},
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {},
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that responses carry native creative assets and URLs and that Microsoft omits unlisted formats, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or auth/scope requirements for the account-campaign hierarchy.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves obvious questions unaddressed rather than being genuinely complete.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the minimum is met. However, for a tool requiring five mandatory identifiers across the account/campaign/adGroup chain, the description does not indicate that all five must be resolved first or how to obtain them, which the schema alone only partially conveys.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the adTypes enum and the note that unlisted formats are omitted, so the description's adTypes remark largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra meaning is layered onto accountId, campaignId, campaignType or adGroupId.

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 ('Read ads') and enumerates what comes back (native creative assets, URLs, status). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as bing_list_ad_creatives, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only usage-adjacent sentence ('adTypes controls which formats Microsoft returns') is a parameter behavior, not a routing rule, and with 20 sibling tools the lack of differentiation is a real gap.

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