Skip to main content
Glama

Rename a campaign, or change its budget or bidding strategy

update_campaign
Destructive

Change a campaign's name, reassign it to a different budget, or switch its bidding strategy - everything about a campaign except status (use update_campaign_status for that). Useful for the common pattern of starting on MANUAL_CPC to see real auction behaviour, then moving to an automated strategy once there's data to bid on, without recreating the campaign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew campaign name.
budgetIdNoReassign to a different campaign budget id.
campaignIdYesCampaign id from get_campaigns.
customerIdNo10-digit Google Ads customer id. Omit only if this connection has exactly one reachable account - with more than one, omitting it errors and lists the available ids to pick from.
extraFieldsNoEscape hatch for a field Google requires that this tool doesn't set yet - use it when a prior call to this same tool failed naming a required field and its valid values (e.g. after adding `contains_eu_political_advertising`, retry with { contains_eu_political_advertising: "DOES_NOT_CONTAIN_EU_POLITICAL_ADVERTISING" }). Keys are the Ads API's own snake_case field names; nest an object to add a field under one this tool already sets (e.g. a new network_settings sub-field). Only ADDS fields not already set by this tool's own arguments - it can never override `status` or any other field already set here, so it cannot be used to bypass validation or a safety default like a campaign's PAUSED-by-default status.
validateOnlyNoDry run. When true the Google Ads API validates the change and reports any errors but applies nothing. Use this first whenever you are unsure - it is free and cannot affect spend.
biddingStrategyNoMAXIMIZE_CONVERSIONS needs conversion tracking already working, or delivery will suffer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It nevertheless adds real behavioral context: the PAUSED-by-default safety state, the fact that extraFields can only add fields and can never override status or bypass validation, and the free dry-run path. It does not discuss live spend impact or reversibility, leaving a small gap against the destructiveHint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement and the sibling exclusion before the workflow aside. The second sentence is long and slightly digressive (the MANUAL_CPC story), but it earns its place by motivating the tool. No filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers routing, the escape hatch semantics, the validateOnly dry-run, and the status exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by giving the biddingStrategy parameter operational meaning (MAXIMIZE_CONVERSIONS requires working conversion tracking) and framing the MANUAL_CPC-to-automated transition as the reason to change it. It still does not add format or constraint detail for name/budgetId beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and resource ('Change a campaign's name, reassign it to a different budget, or switch its bidding strategy') and explicitly carves out the boundary: 'everything about a campaign except status (use update_campaign_status for that).' An agent can distinguish this from update_campaign_status and update_campaign_budget without opening any schema.

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?

Names the excluded case and its alternative tool directly, and supplies a concrete usage pattern (start on MANUAL_CPC, then move to an automated strategy once data exists) that tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources