microsoft-ads-mcp

delete_campaign

Delete one or more campaigns by providing their unique identifiers. Removes specified campaigns from your Microsoft Advertising account.

Instructions

Delete one or more campaigns 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": {
      "campaign_ids": "<campaign_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaign_ids`	Yes	The campaign ids to delete.

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Beyond the annotation indicating mutation (readOnlyHint: false), the description only states deletion. It does not disclose side effects on related entities, reversibility, or error behavior, which would be valuable for a destructive operation.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Slightly too brief for optimal clarity but concise.

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?

For a simple deletion tool with one parameter and existing annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. Sufficient for minimal understanding.

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 the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by id', but is consistent and minimally sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (delete), resource (campaigns), and method (by id), distinguishing it from other campaign-related tools like create_campaign, update_campaign, etc.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites, idempotency, or limitations on the number of campaign IDs. Does not mention when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server