ads.report.conversionsRetrieve conversion data by conversion date for a specified customer, with an optional date range, to analyze ad performance and outcomes.
Conversions by conversion date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_range | No | LAST_30_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only report, describe permissions or account requirements, mention pagination, or explain any behavioral traits beyond the bare topic.
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?
The description is technically concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. A single fragment does not earn its place as the sole guidance for a two-parameter report tool.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description leaves critical invocation details missing: required customer ID format, date range syntax, and how this report differs from other ads reporting tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently.
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%, and both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain what customer_id should contain, what format date_range accepts, or what the default LAST_30_DAYS means.
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 'Conversions by conversion date' essentially restates the tool name and title without a specific verb or additional scope. It does not distinguish this report from siblings such as ads.report.campaign or ads.gaql.query.
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 is given on when to use this report versus ads.gaql.query or other ads.report.* siblings. The name implies a reporting context, but there are no explicit inclusion or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.