LinkedIn Ads MCP Server

linkedin get revenue attribution

linkedin_get_revenue_attribution

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve LinkedIn Ads revenue attribution to see CRM pipeline and closed-won revenue credited to campaigns over a 30–366 day window for accounts with a connected CRM.

Instructions

Read the LinkedIn Revenue Attribution Report: pipeline and closed won revenue from the CRM, attributed to LinkedIn advertising. Only answers for accounts whose Business Manager has a CRM connected, and only over a window of 30 to 366 days.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pivots`	No	One to three of ACCOUNT, CAMPAIGN_GROUP and CAMPAIGN. Defaults to CAMPAIGN.
`endDate`	No	Inclusive end, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today.
`startDate`	Yes	Inclusive start, YYYY-MM-DD. The window must cover 30 to 366 days.
`adAccountId`	Yes	Selected LinkedIn advertising account, numeric ID. It must be listed in LINKEDIN_ADS_ACCOUNT_IDS.
`campaignIds`	No	Restrict reporting to these campaign IDs or URNs in the selected account.
`campaignGroupIds`	No	Restrict reporting to these owned campaign-group IDs.

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the CRM dependency and the enforced 30–366 day window, which materially affect whether and how the tool can be called.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the report identity, then states the key eligibility constraints. Every clause contributes useful information with no wasted phrasing.

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 rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what report it returns, the CRM prerequisite, and the date-window limit. It could be slightly more complete with explicit sibling routing or filter behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the input schema already documents all six parameters, including defaults and constraints. The description reinforces the date-window constraint but adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 names a specific report and clearly defines its content: CRM pipeline and closed-won revenue attributed to LinkedIn advertising. This is a distinct resource from generic insights/statistics tools in the sibling list, so an agent can identify what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear eligibility and constraint guidance: the account's Business Manager must have a CRM connected, and the reporting window must be 30 to 366 days. It does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings like linkedin_get_insights or linkedin_run_statistics_report, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

Deploy Server