Google Ads MCP Server

Create Campaign Budget

create_campaign_budget

Create a daily Google Ads campaign budget and return its resource name, required when creating a new campaign.

Instructions

Creates a daily campaign budget. Returns its resource name, which is required when creating a campaign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	A unique budget name.
`customer_id`	Yes	The Google Ads account to create the budget in.
`daily_amount`	Yes	Daily budget in the account's currency units (e.g. 25.50 means $25.50 for a USD account).
`validate_only`	No	If True, only validates the request without creating anything.
`explicitly_shared`	No	Whether the budget can be shared by multiple campaigns (default False).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, leaving the write semantics to the description, which does say it 'Creates' and what it returns. It does not disclose permission requirements, the effect of explicitly_shared, or error/validation behavior beyond what the schema already covers.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return-value consequence. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still supplies the one fact an agent needs for chaining (the resource name feeds campaign creation). For a mutation tool with thin annotations, slightly more on preconditions would make it complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including validate_only and explicitly_shared are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates a daily campaign budget') and adds the workflow-relevant fact that it returns a resource name needed by campaign creation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling update_campaign_budget, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The mention that the returned resource name is required when creating a campaign implies the ordering context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., update_campaign_budget for modifying an existing budget). Usage is only implied.

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