MCP Apple Ads

Apple Ads: Auth Status

apple_ads_auth_status

Read-only

Verify credentials and reachable ad accounts, confirm write and spending-ceiling settings, and return exact configuration fixes; call first when a tool is missing or returns 403.

Instructions

Report whether the server has working credentials, which ad accounts they reach, whether writes and spending ceilings are set, and — when it is not configured — exactly what to set to fix that. Call this first when a tool you expected is missing, or when a call fails with 403.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apple_ads_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description discloses what the response contains (credential validity, reachable accounts, whether writes and spending ceilings are set) and notes it works even in the unconfigured case, which is behavior an agent could not infer from the empty schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and reserves the second clause for the diagnostic call-to-action. Every clause (credentials, accounts, write/ceiling flags, remediation) maps to distinct information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return content, and it does so by enumerating the four categories of status reported. An agent knows what it will learn and when to reach for it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report whether the server has working credentials') and enumerates the exact facets returned: account reachability, write/spending-ceiling configuration, and remediation steps when unconfigured. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, all of which fetch ad data rather than server configuration state.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering conditions — a tool you expected is missing, or a call fails with 403 — which is actionable routing guidance. It does not state when NOT to call it (e.g., that it is unnecessary on a healthy session), but the diagnostic framing is unambiguous.

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