ads.change_historyRetrieve audit or delta change history for a Google Ads customer within a selected date range, so you can review change events or status changes without manual tracking.
Change history (audit=change_event, delta=change_status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | audit | |
| limit | No | ||
| date_range | No | LAST_7_DAYS | |
| customer_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only audit retrieval, what permissions/customer scope are required, whether results are paginated, or what the default 10,000 limit and LAST_7_DAYS window imply. 'Change history' weakly implies a read, but no behavioral traits are disclosed.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasteful in length. However, the brevity is achieved by omission and internal shorthand rather than by front-loading useful information, so structure is efficient but uninformative.
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 explained, but with 0% parameter documentation, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far too thin for a 4-parameter audit tool. An agent would have to guess at mode semantics and the meaning of limit and date_range.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at 'mode' via the opaque audit=change_event / delta=change_status mapping; limit, date_range, and customer_id receive no meaning at all, and the mode mapping itself is unexplained.
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 restates the title ('Change history') with no verb and no statement of what is actually returned or over what entity. The parenthetical '(audit=change_event, delta=change_status)' is cryptic internal jargon and does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as ads.fields.deltas, ads.api.version_delta, or audit.status.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative. An agent cannot tell whether this is the right tool for auditing account changes versus ads.fields.deltas or audit.status, so the sentence risks misrouting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.