List sitelink assets in the account and where they are attached (campaign / account / ad group level), with each link's resource_name (pass it to google_ads_sitelink_remove) and status. Use to audit existing sitelinks before creating new ones.
Bulk support: accepts customer_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it lists the output fields (resource_name, status), attachment scoping, and bulk execution capability. It does not mention pagination or max batch size, but this is acceptable given annotation coverage.
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?
Two short paragraphs are well-structured and concise. The action is front-loaded, and each sentence provides meaningful information: listing behavior, output fields, use case, and bulk support. No redundant filler.
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 description is informative for a read-only list tool with good annotations: it covers output fields and usage intent. However, the ambiguity of account vs customer_id and the lack of any mention of pagination or result shape (with no output schema) leave some gaps. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains customer_ids ('Bulk support: accepts customer_ids for batched execution'). The distinction between account and customer_id is left unclear, and no other parameter guidance is provided. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.
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 it lists sitelink assets, their attachment levels, resource_name, and status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_ads_sitelink_create and google_ads_sitelink_remove by framing this as an audit/listing action.
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?
Explicit guidance is given: 'Use to audit existing sitelinks before creating new ones.' This indicates the intended context and separates it from creation/removal tools. It also notes bulk support via customer_ids, though it does not detail exclusions or alternative tools.
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.