microsoft-ads-mcp

get_auth_url

Read-only

Generate a sign-in URL to authenticate with your Microsoft Ads account. After user signs in, provide the returned URL to complete authentication.

Instructions

Begin one-time sign-in: returns an OAuth sign-in URL to give the user.

The URL targets the account's identity provider (Microsoft by default, or Google for Google-federated accounts). Present it to the user as a clickable sign-in link, and ask them to sign in with the account that manages the ad account. After they sign in, the browser lands on a near-blank page whose address-bar URL contains a code= value; have them paste that full URL back, then call complete_auth with it.

Only needed once, when no refresh token is configured. The minted token is persisted and auto-refreshed thereafter, so the user never has to repeat this.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_auth_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the URL targets an identity provider, the flow includes a code= parameter, and the token is persisted and auto-refreshed.

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 5 sentences, well-structured: summary, details of the OAuth flow, and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given zero parameters, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, step-by-step workflow, and when it is needed. It is complete for its context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 explicitly states the tool returns an OAuth sign-in URL and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'complete_auth', which is called afterward.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description says 'Only needed once, when no refresh token is configured' and advises to call 'complete_auth' after. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server