Detach sitelinks from a campaign / account / ad group. Pass the link_resource_name(s) from google_ads_sitelinks. Removes only the association (the shared sitelink asset stays in the account library), so it is reversible by re-attaching.
Bulk support: accepts customer_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| customer_ids | No | ||
| partial_failure | No | ||
| link_resource_names | Yes |
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 description explicitly states that only the association is removed, the asset remains in the library, and the operation is reversible. This directly addresses the side effects and aligns with the destructiveHint=false annotation, providing clear transparency about the impact.
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, two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and additional details (reversibility, bulk support) neatly appended. No unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and 5 parameters, the description provides sufficient context for the core functionality and key parameter usage. It does not explain return values or error handling, but for a mutation tool with reversible effects, the provided context is adequate.
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 description explains link_resource_names (source) and customer_ids (bulk usage), but does not elaborate on account, customer_id, or partial_failure. Since schema descriptions are absent, the description only partially compensates for parameter meaning; some parameters remain ambiguous.
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 action (detach sitelinks) and the target resources (campaign/account/ad group). It distinguishes from related tools like google_ads_sitelink_create and google_ads_sitelinks by specifying removal and the source of link_resource_names.
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?
It explains when to use the tool (to detach sitelinks), how to obtain the required link_resource_names (from google_ads_sitelinks), and mentions bulk support via customer_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for deletion of assets.
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.