google_ads_get_campaignsGoogle Ads per-campaign metrics for this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| page_id | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| ad_account | No | ||
| ig_user_id | No | ||
| user_email | No | ||
| range_preset | No | ||
| activity_only | No | ||
| campaign_name | No | ||
| property_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no pagination behavior, no default window, no note on how the 17 optional filters interact.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise — brevity here reflects missing content, not tight writing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with 17 undocumented optional parameters and no usage context, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.
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?
17 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and not a single parameter referenced in the description. Names like 'range_preset', 'activity_only', 'user_id', and 'client_id' are left completely opaque; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.
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?
States a clear verb ('get') plus resource ('Google Ads per-campaign metrics') scoped to 'this account'. The 'per-campaign' framing loosely separates it from account-level siblings like google_ads_get_summary, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as google_ads_get_summary, google_ads_get_trends, or meta_ads_get_campaigns. The agent must infer the scenario entirely from the name.
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.