AdsAgent — Google Ads MCP

google_ads_management_confirm

Destructive

Confirm an exact typed management plan; state drift requires prepare again. Uncertain sends are not replayed. Compatibility entrypoint; prefer the matching named tool: google_ads_ad_text_update_confirm, google_ads_experiment_create_confirm, google_ads_experiment_initiate_confirm, google_ads_ad_status_update_confirm, google_ads_experiment_halt_confirm, google_ads_asset_group_update_confirm, google_ads_campaign_dates_update_confirm, google_ads_shared_budget_update_confirm, google_ads_portfolio_target_update_confirm, google_ads_schedule_replace_confirm, google_ads_negative_location_add_confirm, google_ads_negative_keyword_add_confirm, google_ads_retail_tree_replace_confirm, google_ads_asset_group_link_confirm, google_ads_asset_group_unlink_confirm.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`draft_id`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes	10-digit Google Ads customer id.
`connection_context`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / connection_context
```
Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
AddedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: drift invalidation requiring a fresh prepare, and that uncertain sends are not replayed (idempotency guarantee). These are real behavioral disclosures beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key clauses (drift, non-replay) are front-loaded and valuable, but roughly two-thirds of the text is a 15-item sibling name dump. The list aids routing yet is repetitive bulk that dilutes an otherwise tight description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive confirm tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the important operational caveats (drift, non-replay, prefer named tools). It is nearly complete, with the only real gap being parameter meaning that the schema also fails to cover.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (customer_id documented, draft_id and connection_context not). With coverage below 50% the description is expected to compensate, but it says nothing about what draft_id or connection_context mean or how to obtain them, leaving the caller reliant on undocumented fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Confirm an exact typed management plan') and explicitly frames itself as a compatibility entrypoint that should defer to named siblings. The sibling list makes the relationship to other confirm tools unambiguous, though the core generic purpose is somewhat buried under the enumeration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit routing guidance ('prefer the matching named tool' with the exact names) and a precondition ('state drift requires prepare again'). It stops short of stating when this generic entrypoint is genuinely the right choice versus a fallback, but the when-to-use-alternative signal is clear.

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

All AdsAgent — Google Ads MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?