Microsoft Advertising MCP server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bing health check

bing_health_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirm your Microsoft Advertising account environment and ownership. Read key account data to verify currency and ensure the setup is properly configured for campaign management.

Instructions

Read the selected account and confirm the environment, owning customer and currency. This does not validate every feature.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by bounding the scope of validation ('does not validate every feature'), which tells the agent not to treat a pass as a full diagnostic.

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 with no waste, and the primary action is front-loaded before the scope caveat. Slightly terse but appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and a single fully documented parameter plus read-only annotations cover most of the burden. Only the routing versus sibling tools is left implicit.

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% and the accountId parameter is documented thoroughly in the schema (numeric ID vs eight-character number). The description adds no parameter guidance, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Read the selected account') and enumerates what is confirmed: environment, owning customer, and currency. This makes the operation concrete rather than a tautology of 'health check', though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bing_list_accounts.

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?

The caveat 'This does not validate every feature' hints that this is a lightweight verification step, but the description never states when to prefer it over bing_list_accounts or bing_get_setup_guide. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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