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 one criterion type, including inclusions and exclusions, to inspect Microsoft Advertising configuration 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying inclusions and exclusions are returned and that this is configuration rather than performance, but it does not discuss pagination or response shape. With rich annotations and an output schema, this is an adequate but not exceptional addition.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and the key distinction from performance reporting are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan.

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?

Given the rich input schema, existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description supplies the key conceptual distinction an agent needs: this reads targeting configuration, not performance. It is complete enough for correct selection and invocation, though it could optionally mention that criterion types are read one at a time.

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%, with enums and required-field documentation, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only a small amount of semantic context: campaign-level versus ad group-level targeting and the single criterion type scope. This meets the baseline for a high-coverage schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('configured campaign or ad group targeting'), and a bounded scope ('one criterion type'). It also explicitly distinguishes this configuration read from demographic performance reporting, so an agent can tell what the tool is and is not for.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by framing this as a configuration read and explicitly warning that it is not demographic performance. It does not name the reporting sibling as an alternative for performance data, but the when-to-use and when-not-to-use distinction is clear enough.

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