Adsap

Create Google Display Campaign

adsap_google_create_display_campaign

Create a classic standalone Google Display campaign in ONE atomic request: budget, campaign (ALWAYS created PAUSED — activate later with adsap_google_set_entity_status), location + language targeting, a Display ad group, and a responsive display ad. IMPORTANT CONTEXT to relay when relevant: Google is migrating standalone Display INTO Demand Gen (every response carries a heads-up; this campaign type will eventually be auto-migrated) — for new builds consider adsap_google_create_demand_gen_campaign with channels.selected.display: true instead; this tool exists for classic account-structure parity and full Display bid control. The ad REQUIRES BOTH image classes: at least one landscape image (1.91:1, min 600x314) AND at least one square image (1:1, min 300x300) — combined max 15 — plus 1-5 headlines (max 30 chars), EXACTLY ONE long_headline (max 90), 1-5 descriptions (max 90), business_name (max 25) and final_url. Optional: square logos (1:1, min 128x128) and landscape logos (4:1, min 512x128) combined max 5, up to 5 YouTube video assets, call_to_action_text (max 30). All image/video inputs are ASSET ids from adsap_google_upload_asset. Bidding: 'auto' picks Maximize Clicks (works without conversion tracking); 'manual_cpc' requires cpc_bid; 'maximize_conversions' (no target attached — Display rejects that combination); 'target_cpa' (standalone, needs target_cpa, no conversion-history requirement); 'target_roas' HAS a conversion-history eligibility gate (Google rejects it on accounts without enough conversions — relay that plainly if it fails). Use dry_run: true first — Google validates the whole chain without creating anything; show the plan, get confirmation, then execute. ad_account_id is the bare 10-digit customer ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ad`	Yes
`geo`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`ad_group`	No
`campaign`	Yes
`language_ids`	No	Language constant ids (e.g. 1000 = English). Campaign-level; omit to target all languages.
`ad_account_id`	Yes	Bare 10-digit Google Ads customer ID (from adsap_google_list_ad_accounts). No dashes, no act_ prefix.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: campaign is ALWAYS created paused, the request is atomic, dry_run validates without creating, Display is being migrated into Demand Gen, and every response carries a heads-up. Bidding constraints and eligibility gates are explicitly disclosed.

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 front-loaded and organized into scope, context, ad requirements, bidding, and workflow. It is dense and necessary for the tool's complexity, though it partially repeats constraints already present in the schema and uses emphatic formatting that adds length without much semantic value.

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?

For a highly nested campaign-creation tool with no output schema, this covers all critical preconditions: asset provenance, mandatory image classes, bidding eligibility, dry-run validation, and relationship to sibling tools. An agent has enough to retrieve the right inputs and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 29%, and the description compensates by clarifying budget units (plain number, not micros/cents), that image/video fields are asset IDs from adsap_google_upload_asset, image size/aspect requirements, exact long_headline count, bid-strategy pairings, and the bare 10-digit ad_account_id format.

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?

States a specific action and resource: creates a classic standalone Google Display campaign as one atomic request encompassing budget, campaign, targeting, ad group, and ad. It explicitly differentiates this from Demand Gen by naming the sibling and the account-parity rationale.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Tells the agent that for new builds it should consider adsap_google_create_demand_gen_campaign instead, and that this tool is for classic account-structure parity and full Display bid control. It also prescribes the workflow of dry_run first, then execution, and directs activation to adsap_google_set_entity_status.

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

All Adsap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?