microsoft-ads-mcp

add_negative_keywords

Attach negative keywords to a campaign or ad group to exclude unwanted search terms and improve ad targeting.

Instructions

Attach negative keywords to a campaign or ad group.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>",
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "add_negative_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keywords`	Yes	Negative keyword texts to add.
`entity_id`	Yes	The campaign id (or ad group id) to attach negatives to.
`match_type`	No	"Broad", "Phrase", or "Exact" (default "Exact").	Exact
`entity_type`	No	"Campaign" or "AdGroup" (default "Campaign").	Campaign

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`ids`	No
`message`	Yes
`partial_errors`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only restates that the tool adds keywords, without disclosing behavioral details such as whether it appends or overwrites existing negatives, or any rate limits. The readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicates mutation, so the description adds little beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more structured to include brief usage hints.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about error conditions, idempotency, or limits. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('attach negative keywords') and the target resource ('campaign or ad group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_keywords' or 'remove_negative_keywords'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_negative_keywords' or 'add_keywords'. It also lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., the entity must exist) or when to choose campaign vs. ad group.

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

Deploy Server