microsoft-ads-mcp

delete_ad

Delete one or more ads by providing their IDs and the parent ad group ID. Removes ads from your Microsoft Advertising campaigns.

Instructions

Delete one or more ads by id.

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": {
      "ad_group_id": "<ad_group_id>",
      "ad_ids": "<ad_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_ad"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ad_ids`	Yes	The ad ids to delete.
`ad_group_id`	Yes	The parent ad group id.

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 straightforwardly states the delete operation, which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=false. However, it adds no behavioral details such as whether deletion is irreversible, cascading effects, permissions required, or confirmation steps. The annotation already covers the write nature, so the description adds minimal value.

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 a single, concise sentence with no superfluous information. Every word is necessary and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple delete tool with two well-described parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks only minor context about return format or confirmation, but the output schema likely covers that. The sibling tools provide contrast, but the description does not address when alternatives are appropriate.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (ad_ids and ad_group_id) with clear descriptions, and coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Delete one or more ads by id' precisely states the action (delete), the resource (ads), and the scope (by id). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_keyword or delete_ad_group.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting campaigns or ad groups) or under what conditions deletion should be performed. There is no mention of prerequisites or consequences.

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

Deploy Server