AdCopilot

Google Ads: add assets to asset group

add_assets_to_asset_group

Destructive

Adds assets to an existing asset group.

In an asset group that is already serving, the added assets can show in
its ads to the public, from the campaign's budget, as soon as Google
approves them.

Use this to add more assets to an asset group after it's been created.

Args:
    customer_id: The Google Ads customer ID (numbers only, no hyphens).
    asset_group_resource_name: The resource name of the asset group.
    assets: List of asset objects, each with:
        - asset_resource_name: The resource name of the asset.
        - field_type: One of: HEADLINE, DESCRIPTION, LONG_HEADLINE,
            MARKETING_IMAGE, SQUARE_MARKETING_IMAGE, LOGO,
            LANDSCAPE_LOGO, YOUTUBE_VIDEO, CALL_TO_ACTION_SELECTION.

Returns:
    Dictionary with the count of assets added.

Tools revision: d80f65c0.

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": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "asset_group_resource_name": "<asset_group_resource_name>",
      "assets": "<assets>"
    },
    "name": "add_assets_to_asset_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assets`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes
`asset_group_resource_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds real operational context: added assets can serve to the public immediately after Google approval and spend from the campaign budget. That is valuable beyond the annotations, but it does not address duplicate-asset behavior, size/type limits per asset group, or whether the change is reversible — gaps that matter given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the serving consequence, then usage, then structured Args/Returns blocks — a sensible order with no filler. The usage sentence mildly restates the opening line, and the Args block is verbose, though that verbosity is justified by the 0% schema coverage.

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 three-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and which has an output schema, this is complete: action, real-world side effect, when to use, and full parameter/type semantics are all present. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the input schema is nearly opaque (generic array of string maps), so the description carries the full burden — and does: it documents all three parameters, the numbers-only customer_id format, and the nested assets shape with asset_resource_name plus the full field_type enum list. Without this text an agent could not construct a valid call.

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 verb and resource ('Adds assets to an existing asset group'), with 'existing' distinguishing it from the create_asset_group sibling. An agent can immediately tell this is an attach/mutate operation on an already-created container rather than an asset or group creation tool.

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?

'Use this to add more assets to an asset group after it's been created' gives a clear window for use, and the surrounding siblings (create_asset_group, link_asset_to_ad_group, create_text_asset) make the context inferable. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion, so the agent must reason about create-vs-attach and which link_* tool applies on its own.

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

All AdCopilot 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?