Upfixe Ads

Propose a structured campaign goal for the user to approve

propose_campaign_goal

Read-only

Given a brand and a landing page, propose a structured campaign goal (who/what/why/where + core message + suggested seed keywords) for the user to APPROVE before any keyword research or draft generation happens. This is the same goal generator the web app uses.

Call this tool AFTER the user has provided a campaign brief (landing page URL + country/language + budget + target CPA) and BEFORE calling generate_campaign_draft. The goal it returns is the foundation for keyword research and ad copy — having the user okay it now (or ask for edits) means we don't waste a 1-2 minute campaign generation on the wrong positioning.

Show the returned goal to the user verbatim. If they want changes, just ask follow-up questions and re-draft conversationally — there's no 'edit goal' tool, the goal is just text/structured fields. Once they approve, pass campaignGoal (free-form string version of the goal) into generate_campaign_draft.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brandId`	Yes	The brand the campaign is for (must have a value-prop doc — call get_value_prop_doc first to check).
`targetCountry`	No	Target geography — be as SPECIFIC as the user is. Google Ads' geo API resolves any granularity: city, state/region, country, or postal code. Always disambiguate with the country when the city name is non-unique. Examples: 'London, United Kingdom' (not just 'London' — London, Ontario exists), 'Florida, USA' (not just 'Florida'), 'Paris, France' (not 'Paris' — Paris, Texas), 'United Kingdom' (country-wide is fine for nationally-targeted brands). For local-service businesses (plumbers, dentists, restaurants) ALWAYS push the user for city-level — country-wide spend on a London-only business wastes 95%+ of impressions.
`landingPageUrl`	Yes	The specific page ads will drive traffic to. Often a product/offer page, not necessarily the brand's homepage.
`targetLanguage`	No	ISO-639-1 language code, e.g. 'en', 'es'. Defaults to 'en'.	en

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this by noting no keyword research or draft generation happens. It adds substantial workflow context beyond the annotations: show the goal verbatim, re-draft conversationally on edits, and there is no 'edit goal' tool. It does not discuss rate limits or return format, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 purpose and the contents of the goal, then the sequencing and interaction guidance. Every sentence carries actionable information; it is slightly long but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the goal's structure (who/what/why/where + message + keywords) and the full workflow from brief to approval to passing campaignGoal into generate_campaign_draft. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents brandId, landingPageUrl, targetCountry, and targetLanguage in detail. The description mentions the brief inputs (URL, country/language) but adds no new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (propose) plus resource (structured campaign goal) with the exact contents enumerated (who/what/why/where + core message + seed keywords). It clearly distinguishes itself from generate_campaign_draft by positioning as the goal-proposal step that precedes draft generation.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call AFTER the campaign brief (landing page URL + country/language + budget + target CPA) and BEFORE generate_campaign_draft. It even explains the rationale (avoid wasting a 1-2 minute generation) and what to do on user rejection.

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

All Upfixe Ads 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?