Skip to main content
Glama

Opus Growth, Ad Platforms MCP Connector

Add Negative Keyword

add_negative_keyword

Adds negative keywords at CAMPAIGN or AD GROUP level (to stop wasted spend) — ONE keyword or a WHOLE BATCH in a single call.

BULK (use this whenever there is more than one keyword — one call, one confirmation, one credit): keywords=['ucuz|BROAD', 'iş ilanı|EXACT', 'kariyer'] — each item is 'text' (takes match_type, default PHRASE) or 'text|EXACT' / 'text|PHRASE' / 'text|BROAD', exactly like manage_shared_negative_list. A comma- or newline-separated string is accepted too. Up to 5000 per call. NEVER loop this tool one keyword at a time: the batch goes to Google as a single mutate with partial failure ON, so one bad or duplicate keyword can no longer take the rest of the batch down, every keyword comes back with its own ok/criterion_id/error, and nothing can be silently dropped between hand-made batches.

skip_existing=true (default) first reads the negatives already live on that campaign/ad group and skips exact (text + match type) duplicates — repeat daily runs then stay idempotent and do not burn the 10.000-negatives-per-campaign limit. Set false to write them anyway.

Give campaign_id to block the term across the whole campaign, or ad_group_id to block it in ONE ad group only — the latter is what cross-negation needs (each ad group serves only its own theme, negating the other groups' core terms inside a single campaign). If both are given, ad_group_id wins. Undo: remove_negative_keyword (bulk: criterion_ids=[...] or keywords=[...]) at campaign level; manage_keywords(action='remove') at ad group level — list_negative_keywords returns the ids. If confirm=false, returns a dry-run preview of the WHOLE batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNo
confirmNo
keywordsNo
match_typeNoPHRASE
ad_group_idNo
campaign_idNo
customer_idYes
skip_existingNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. Added
  14. Removed
  15. Added
  16. Removed
  17. Added
  18. Removed
  19. Added
  20. Removed
  21. Added
  22. Removed
  23. Added
  24. Removed
  25. Added
  26. Removed
  27. Added
  28. Removed
  29. Added
  30. Removed
  31. Added
  32. Removed
  33. Added
  34. Removed
  35. Added
  36. Removed
  37. Added
  38. Removed
  39. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations: partial-failure semantics (one bad keyword can't kill the batch), per-keyword ok/criterion_id/error returns, the 10,000-negatives-per-campaign limit, idempotency via skip_existing, and dry-run behavior when confirm=false. Annotations declare idempotentHint=false, but the description clarifies that skip_existing=true makes repeated runs effectively idempotent, which is a coherent refinement rather than a contradiction.

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 core action, then batched into scannable paragraphs for bulk, skip_existing, targeting, and undo. Dense but every block is load-bearing; minor redundancy between the intro and the BULK section costs it a point.

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?

For an 8-param mutation tool with no output schema documentation in the description, every behavioral trait an agent needs is present: scope, batching, dedupe, limits, precedence, dry-run, and undo path. Nothing material is left to inference.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: per-item format ('text' or 'text|MATCH_TYPE'), comma/newline string acceptance, the 5000-item cap, skip_existing semantics, campaign_id vs ad_group_id precedence, and confirm=false dry-run behavior. All 8 params are effectively documented.

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?

Explicit verb+resource (adds negative keywords) with scope stated up front: campaign or ad group level, single or batch. An agent can distinguish it from remove_negative_keyword, list_negative_keywords, and the Microsoft/TikTok variants without inspecting schemas.

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?

Prescribes exactly when to use bulk (more than one keyword), when to pass campaign_id vs ad_group_id (cross-negation semantics), which wins if both are given, and explicitly warns against looping. Routing to remove_negative_keyword/manage_keywords for undo is spelled out.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.