Set pull/create/decision policy for one owned connection/customer route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| allow_pull | No | ||
| customer_id | Yes | ||
| allow_create | No | ||
| allow_decision | No | ||
| connection_ref | Yes | ||
| connection_context | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| code | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| needs | No | ||
| route | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| error_code | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| support_ref | No | ||
| invalid_fields | No | ||
| rejected_paths | No | ||
| origin_support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "details": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retryable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error_code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "invalid_fields": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "needs": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "origin_support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rejected_paths": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "retryable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "route": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "allow_create": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "allow_decision": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "allow_pull": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "connection_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "customer_id": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "routing_status": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "support_ref": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / connection_contextAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds nothing about what destruction means here, e.g. whether omitted booleans are reset to false (revoking access) or left unchanged. For a mutation with a destructive flag, that ambiguity is a real gap.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness trades away the detail an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with six undocumented parameters, a destructive annotation, and an unmentioned sibling that appears to overlap, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 coverage is 0% across six parameters. The description only loosely names 'pull/create/decision', which map to three boolean flags, and says nothing about connection_ref, customer_id, connection_context, or what each policy flag actually controls. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 verb 'Set' and object 'pull/create/decision policy for one owned connection/customer route' give a rough sense of the operation, but 'route' and 'decision policy' are unexplained jargon. It never mentions the near-identical sibling google_ads_connection_permissions_set, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus google_ads_connection_permissions_set or any of the *_get/snapshot tools that read permission state. No prerequisites (ownership requirement is only hinted by the adjective 'owned') and no exclusions.
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.