List Google Ads campaigns with status and budgets. Default (ALL) returns both ENABLED and PAUSED campaigns; pass status ENABLED or PAUSED to narrow. REMOVED (deleted) campaigns are excluded.
Bulk support: accepts customer_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ALL | |
| account | No | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| customer_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the default ALL behavior, explicit exclusion of REMOVED campaigns, and bulk execution support via customer_ids. There is no annotation contradiction.
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 concise and efficiently structured in two sentences. It leads with the core purpose, then explains status behavior and bulk support without unnecessary filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
The tool is a simple listing tool with annotations already covering safety and idempotency. The description covers purpose, statuses, REMOVED exclusion, and bulk support. Minor gaps remain on the account/customer_id meaning and result shape, but the core context is sufficient.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does clarify the status parameter and defaults, and explains that customer_ids enables bulk execution. However, it leaves account and customer_id ambiguous, and the schema itself provides no descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool lists Google Ads campaigns with status and budgets. It distinguishes this read-only listing from sibling create/update tools and specifies the different status filtering behavior.
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?
Usage guidance is direct: the default ALL behavior is explained, filtering by ENABLED/PAUSED is shown, and REMOVED campaigns are explicitly excluded. It does not mention when to use alternative tools like google_ads_campaign_create or google_ads_campaign_update_status, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.
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 google_ads_* tools map to distinct resource+action pairs, but the five keyword tools (keywords_keywords, keywords_diagnostics, keywords_raw, keywords_search_terms, keywords_status) share essentially the same description and action list, differing only by a flattened action label. google_ads_account, google_ads_status, google_ads_list_accounts, and connect/toolkit_info also overlap in account/status purposes.
Domain tools mostly follow a google_ads_<resource>_<action> pattern, with plural nouns for list operations like google_ads_campaigns and google_ads_ads. This is muddied by redundant google_ads_keywords_keywords, metric-only names like google_ads_roas/google_ads_today, and six generic meta tools that break the prefix pattern.
35 tools is too many for a coherent Google Ads surface. Five keyword tools are one logical action router split into separate endpoints, and several platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are unrelated to the Google Ads domain, inflating the count.
The server covers major workflows: accounts, campaigns, budgets, ad groups, ads, keywords, negative keywords, sitelinks, performance, and change history. However, there is no way to list existing ad groups, no negative keyword removal, and no creative update beyond pause/enable/remove, which are notable gaps for this domain.