Skip to main content
Glama

Google_ads

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must carry the burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), and scope constraints ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection'), far beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph but every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, usage triggers, exclusion, best practices, token mechanism, rate limits, and quota. Though not bulleted, it's efficiently written and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: what the tool does, when to use, what to avoid, the claim_token response flow, and rate limiting. It even tells the team's review cadence. Nothing critical is omitted.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions. The description adds extra semantics by explaining how to use `claim_token` and advising not to paste end-user prompts, enriching the `message` field. Baseline 3 plus added value justifies 4.

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?

The description opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' clearly defining the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools (all research/monitoring tools) by specifying it's for feedback to the team.

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?

Explicitly lists scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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

All Google_ads toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The five gads_* tools are distinct, but the majority of the surface is a sprawling research/meta toolkit with many overlapping retrieval entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and search_within all cover overlapping information-query territory. An agent could easily misroute a question among the ask_pipeworx variants or between the general-query and company-profile tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Domain prefixes like gads_, polymarket_, and ask_pipeworx_ provide some structure, but naming conventions are mixed: gads_list_campaigns and list_subscriptions follow verb_noun, while entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, remember, and generate_llms_txt do not. The names are readable and grouped by prefix, but they do not form one consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is a large surface, and the count becomes even more problematic because the server is named Google_ads while only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Google Ads. The other 31 tools are a broad Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utility set, which makes the server feel bloated and mis-scoped for its advertised purpose.

Completeness2/5

As a Google Ads server, the surface is read-only and incomplete: it can list campaigns and ad groups, get campaign details, pull metrics, and run GAQL, but it cannot create, update, or delete campaigns, manage budgets and bids, or handle keywords, audiences, or ad creatives. The many unrelated data-research tools do not address these core Google Ads management gaps.

Resources