LinkedIn Ads MCP Server

linkedin get account details

linkedin_get_account_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details for a LinkedIn ad account, including member roles, to diagnose why access works on one account but fails on another.

Instructions

Read one LinkedIn ad account in full, with the members who hold a role on it. Roles decide what the connection can do, so a read that fails on one account and works on another is usually a role, not a scope.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`adAccountId`	Yes	Selected LinkedIn advertising account, numeric ID. It must be listed in LINKEDIN_ADS_ACCOUNT_IDS.
`includeUsers`	No	Also list the account users and their roles. On by default.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Original tool result: parsed JSON when the text is JSON, otherwise the text. Provider fields depend on the selected query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Oct 26, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description contributes one genuinely non-obvious trait — that per-account role grants, not scopes, drive failures — which is useful diagnostic context, but it omits anything about cost, rate limits, or response shape.

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 padding, with the core read action front-loaded before the troubleshooting note. Every sentence carries distinct 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 no explanation, and the description covers purpose, included data, and failure semantics. Only the absence of any explicit routing to sibling tools keeps it from a 5.

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 (adAccountId with its LINKEDIN_ADS_ACCOUNT_IDS constraint, and includeUsers defaulting on) are already fully documented. The description's mention of 'members who hold a role' loosely maps to includeUsers but adds no syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one LinkedIn ad account in full') and adds the scope detail that member roles are included. It implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling but never names linkedin_list_ad_accounts, so the differentiation is inferable 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The single-account framing plus the note that failures are usually role-based gives clear context for when this read is the right call versus a list operation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions.

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

Deploy Server