Microsoft Advertising MCP server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bing get targeting

bing_get_targeting

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads configured campaign or ad group targeting for a single criterion type, including inclusions and exclusions, to verify targeting settings rather than performance.

Instructions

Read configured campaign or ad group targeting for one criterion type, inclusions and exclusions included. This is configuration, not demographic performance.

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>",
      "criterionType": "<criterionType>"
    },
    "name": "bing_get_targeting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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`	No	Optional ad group ID. Omit it to read campaign-level criteria.
`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.
`criterionType`	Yes	Criterion type to read. Call once per type.

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context — results include both inclusions and exclusions, and only one criterion type is returned per call — but says nothing about pagination, size of result sets, or behavior when the criterion type is unconfigured.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the operation and its scope come first, followed by the single most important disambiguation. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the essential framing: config vs performance, campaign vs ad group level, and inclusions-plus-exclusions. The only gap is routing ambiguity against bing_get_insights and bing_get_audiences, which an agent would want resolved.

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 is already documented, including the campaign-vs-ad-group distinction in adGroupId and the 'call once per type' note in criterionType. The description only echoes the one-criterion-type constraint, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Read configured campaign or ad group targeting'), names the scope (one criterion type, inclusions plus exclusions), and contrasts itself with performance data. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (bing_get_insights) that the performance side belongs to, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'This is configuration, not demographic performance' gives a clear exclusion, which implies the agent should go elsewhere for performance data. However, it never names that alternative, and it gives no guidance on the overlap with bing_get_audiences for audience-type criteria (RemarketingList, CustomAudience, InMarketAudience all appear in criterionType).

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