microsoft-ads-mcp

get_device_bid_adjustments

Read-only

Retrieve device bid adjustments for a campaign, showing percent modifiers for computers, smartphones, and tablets, including exclusion settings.

Instructions

Read a campaign's device bid adjustments (Computers / Smartphones / Tablets).

Each row's bid_adjustment is a percent modifier (-100 to 900; -100 excludes the device). An empty list means no device modifier is set, so every device serves at the base bid. Note Microsoft calls mobile "Smartphones". Set one with set_device_bid_adjustment.

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_id": "<campaign_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_device_bid_adjustments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaign_id`	Yes	The campaign id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Explains bid_adjustment range (-100 to 900) and meaning of empty list, plus clarifies Microsoft's terminology for mobile. These details add value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no unnecessary words.

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 the simple read operation, existing output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers expected behavior, output interpretation, and cross-references the write counterpart.

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 coverage is 100% with description 'The campaign id.' The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate.

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?

Clearly states it reads device bid adjustments for a campaign, lists specific devices (Computers, Smartphones, Tablets), and distinguishes from the sibling set_device_bid_adjustment.

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?

Explicitly mentions the sibling tool for setting adjustments, guiding when to use this read tool. However, no explicit when-not scenarios, but 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