MCP Apple Ads

Apple Ads: Search Apps

apple_ads_search_apps

Read-only

Search the App Store by app name or keyword to retrieve an app's adamId for campaign setup, including competitor apps when App Store Connect data isn't available.

Instructions

Search the App Store for an app and get its adamId, which every campaign needs. The adamId is the SAME number as the app's id in App Store Connect — if the app_store_connect MCP server is loaded, app_store_connect_list_apps gives it directly and is both cheaper and unambiguous. Use this when it is not, or to find a competitor's app.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "apple_ads_search_apps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many records to return (1-1000). Apple's own maximum page size is 5000.
`query`	Yes	App name or keyword to search the App Store for.
`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.
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the adamId/App Store Connect `id` equivalence and the fact that search results can be ambiguous. It does not describe result shape (names, multiple matches, ranking) or failure behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output, then the alternative-tool routing, then the fallback case. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 a read-only search with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, routing, and the key returned identifier. It stops short of describing what a multi-result response looks like, which matters for a search tool where ambiguity was explicitly flagged.

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%, with query, limit (including Apple's 5000 page-size note), savePath, and adAccountId resolution all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search the App Store for an app') plus the concrete output it exists to produce ('get its adamId, which every campaign needs'). The stated output distinguishes it from lookup siblings like apple_ads_get_app, which takes a known id rather than finding one.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: prefer app_store_connect_list_apps when that server is loaded because it is 'cheaper and unambiguous', and use this tool when it is not, or for competitor apps. Both the alternative and the condition selecting it are named, plus a caveat about identity ambiguity.

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