MCP Apple Ads

Apple Ads: Get Impression Share

apple_ads_get_impression_share

Read-only

Measure how often an app appeared for a search term versus how often it could have, revealing keyword headroom so you can distinguish exhausted keywords from underfunded ones.

Instructions

How often your app appeared for a search term relative to how often it could have — the measure of headroom. Use it to tell 'this keyword is exhausted' from 'this keyword is underfunded'. Separate from apple_ads_get_report because it needs an app, not a campaign.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "adamIds": "<adamIds>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>"
    },
    "name": "apple_ads_get_impression_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many records to return (1-1000). Apple's own maximum page size is 5000.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip, for paging. The response's `pagination` block says how many exist.
`adamIds`	Yes	App Store app ids to report on — yours, and optionally competitors'.
`endDate`	Yes	Last day of the range, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.
`savePath`	No	Absolute path to also write this result to, as pretty-printed JSON. Use it rather than copying values out of the response into a file by hand. Parent directories are created.
`countries`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes to restrict to.
`startDate`	Yes	First day of the range, YYYY-MM-DD.
`adAccountId`	No	The ad account to act on. Omit it when you have exactly one or APPLE_ADS_AD_ACCOUNT_ID is set — it is resolved automatically. List them with apple_ads_list_accounts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the app-vs-campaign scoping requirement, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or how impression share is expressed (percentage vs ratio) — gaps the schema only partially covers via limit/offset.

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 filler, with the conceptual definition front-loaded and the sibling differentiation last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For an 8-parameter read-only reporting tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and tool selection adequately. It could say more about what the response rows contain (search terms with share values), but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented, including adamIds accepting competitor ids and savePath semantics. The description's 'needs an app, not a campaign' reinforces adamIds 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?

The description defines the metric concretely ('how often your app appeared for a search term relative to how often it could have') and names the resource scope (app-level, search terms). It stops short of a crisp verb+object statement like 'retrieves impression share for search terms', but the meaning is unambiguous and it explicitly separates itself from apple_ads_get_report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit decision rule ('tell this keyword is exhausted from this keyword is underfunded') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that distinguishes them ('needs an app, not a campaign'). An agent can route between this and get_report without opening either schema.

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