Microsoft Advertising MCP server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bing get report

bing_get_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Poll and download a submitted report for the same account, returning CSV rows for Microsoft Advertising analysis; narrow the range when results are truncated.

Instructions

Poll and download a report submitted by bing_get_insights for the same account. Returns up to 2,000 CSV rows as strings; narrow the range when truncated is true. Empty sandbox output is not production evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt`	Yes	Receipt returned by bing_get_insights in this server session. It expires after one hour.
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new traits: a 2,000-row CSV cap returned as strings, a truncation condition, and a caution that empty sandbox output is not production evidence.

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 waste; the prerequisite and the truncation rule are front-loaded before the caveat.

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?

Covers the polling workflow, the truncation escape hatch, and the output volume caveat; an output schema exists so return structure need not be explained. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters (including the one-hour receipt expiry) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the receipt comes from bing_get_insights and must target the same account, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 specific verbs (poll, download) and the exact resource (a report produced by bing_get_insights for the same account), which distinguishes it from the sibling that creates the report. An agent can select it without opening the 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 ties use to a prior bing_get_insights call on the same account and gives an in-call rule (narrow the range when truncated is true). It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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