Microsoft Advertising MCP server

by get-mcp-ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

bing get insights

bing_get_insights

Read-onlyIdempotent

Submits an asynchronous Microsoft Advertising report for a selected account and returns a receipt to poll for results.

Instructions

Submit an asynchronous Microsoft Advertising report for the selected account and return a receipt. Poll the receipt with bing_get_report. Column compatibility and sandbox data availability apply.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`since`	Yes	First day of the report, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive.
`until`	Yes	Last day of the report, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive, on or after since.
`columns`	Yes	Native report columns compatible with reportType; see bing_get_reporting_schema.
`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.
`campaignId`	No	Optional campaign ID to scope the report. Not supported by account reports.
`reportType`	Yes	Native report type. Each type supports its own columns; see bing_get_reporting_schema.
`aggregation`	No	Daily returns one row per day. Summary returns period totals; omit TimePeriod from columns to avoid splitting rows.	Daily
`reportTimeZone`	No	Native Microsoft reporting time zone. Omit it to keep Microsoft's default.
`returnOnlyCompleteData`	No	True makes Microsoft return an error instead of a report while data for the requested period is still being processed.

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.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.1Oct 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / since / pattern

Added value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))$"

addedInput schema / properties / until / pattern

Added value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))$"

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call is asynchronous and returns a receipt rather than data, column compatibility constraints exist, and sandbox data availability may differ — all beyond what structured fields say.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the async-submit fact and the polling instruction are front-loaded where an agent will read them first.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 9-parameter async submission tool with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the key missing piece — that the return is a receipt requiring polling — plus compatibility caveats. Minor gaps remain (report size limits, receipt expiry, failure modes), but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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%, so every parameter (since/until, columns, accountId, reportType, aggregation, reportTimeZone, returnOnlyCompleteData) is already documented inline, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the general caveat that columns must be compatible with reportType and points to bing_get_reporting_schema, without elaborating on individual parameter semantics.

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 ('Submit an asynchronous Microsoft Advertising report') plus the scope ('selected account') and the return value ('a receipt'). This clearly separates it from bing_get_report, which the description names as the polling counterpart, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent the follow-up step ('Poll the receipt with bing_get_report') and flags prerequisites ('Column compatibility and sandbox data availability apply'), and the schema points to bing_get_reporting_schema for valid columns. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the submit-then-poll workflow is unambiguous.

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