get_ad_groupFetch one ad group by id. Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for this one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space_id | No | Override the active Space for this one call. Defaults to the active Space set via set_active_space (or GROWOMAT_SPACE_ID on the server). Pass to read/write a different Space without changing the session binding. | |
| ad_group_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about Space scoping—how the active Space context works and how to override it via space_id—which is not encoded in the annotation. This is useful context beyond the structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch one ad group by id'), followed by scoping instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool, the description covers purpose, scoping, and override mechanism. No output schema exists, but the return value (the ad group) is implied by the name and description. It does not mention error behavior or not-found cases, but that is not critical for a basic read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes space_id in detail (50% coverage), and the description adds that ad_group_id is the lookup key ('by id'). However, it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; the space_id override is already well-documented in the schema. The description gives minimal extra parameter guidance for ad_group_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Fetch one ad group by id,' clearly specifying the verb (fetch), resource (ad group), and granularity (one by id). This distinguishes it from list_ad_groups, which lists multiple ad groups, and from get_ad or get_campaign, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states scoping to the active Space, points to set_active_space to switch, and mentions the space_id override for a single call. This gives clear usage context and names an alternative tool for changing scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_ad_groups or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (get_ad, update_ad, delete_ad), so entity-level tools are easy to distinguish. The main ambiguity is among reporting/status tools like get_conversion_status, get_conversion_health, get_conversion_report, and account_summary vs. get_performance_stats, which could tempt misselection without reading descriptions.
Naming is highly consistent: nearly every resource has create_/get_/update_/delete_/list_ variants, with predictable special verbs like set_, trigger_, preview_, and upload_. Minor exceptions like account_summary or get_angle_readout still follow the same readable verb-driven style.
83 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even one covering ad management. Most entities have full CRUD plus many custom readouts and report variants, which creates context bloat and makes tool selection unnecessarily expensive for the agent.
The platform covers the full campaign lifecycle: campaigns, ad groups, ads, keywords, assets, business/creative planes, conversion actions, sync, budget, and targeting are all represented. Minor gaps exist—conversion sources have create/list but no get/update/delete, and there is no explicit way to update or remove a conversion source—but these can be worked around.