ads.mutate.schemaLists mutate operation kinds or fields for one kind in the pinned version, helping agents inspect the schema before constructing guarded Google Ads write operations.
List the mutate operation kinds, or the fields of one kind, for the pinned version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_kind | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the mode-switching behavior: omitting operation_kind returns the kind list, supplying it returns that kind's fields, and results reflect the pinned version rather than live schema. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't clarify what 'pinned' means or whether the field list is exhaustive.
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 compact sentence with the dual behavior front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'for the pinned version' trails off without explanation, which is the only wasted/ambiguous clause.
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?
With an output schema present, the return shape needn't be described, and the one parameter is explained. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'pinned version' concept, which an agent may need in order to interpret staleness.
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%, so the description must carry the single optional parameter, and it does: operation_kind acts as a selector between two result shapes (kinds vs. fields of one kind). It doesn't hint at valid kind values or case/format, but the core semantics are supplied where the schema gives none.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and two concrete resources: mutate operation kinds, or the fields of one kind, scoped to the pinned version. It is clearly a discovery/introspection tool distinct from the sibling ads.mutate, though 'pinned version' is never defined.
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?
The description implies prereq-style usage (look up kinds first, then fields of a kind, before calling ads.mutate), but never says so explicitly nor names ads.mutate as the consumer. An agent can infer the workflow but gets no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.