ChatGPT Ads MCP server

openai ads get campaign

openai_ads_get_campaign

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a single ChatGPT Ads campaign to retrieve its native status, budget, schedule, and targeting settings, with optional serving_issues for diagnosing why the campaign cannot serve.

Instructions

Read one campaign with its native status, budget, schedule and targeting.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`include`	No	Add serving_issues to receive native reasons why this entity cannot serve. A paused state is intentional, not an issue.
`campaignId`	Yes	Native campaign ID (cmpn_) in the configured account.
`adAccountId`	Yes	The adacct_ ID configured in OPENAI_ADS_ACCOUNT_ID. The API key is scoped to this one account; another ID is refused.

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 changedOct 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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that fields returned are the "native" ones, without disclosing anything beyond annotations such as the account-scoping refusal or serving-issues behavior (which live in the schema). Given rich annotations, this adds little.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause contributes to the purpose. It is efficient, though somewhat terse given the available schema detail it could reference.

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, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return values or parameter formats. It is adequate for a simple single-resource read, with only marginal room for added guidance about native-field nuances.

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 campaignId, adAccountId and the include flag are all fully documented in the schema, including the serving_issues semantics and the account-scoping restriction. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one campaign") and enumerates the data returned (native status, budget, schedule, targeting), which implicitly separates it from the plural get_campaigns sibling. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 "one campaign" framing implies the single-object use case versus the list tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance. Usage is inferable from context rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server