Google Ads MCP Server

Remove Campaign Criterion

remove_campaign_criterion

Destructive

Removes a single targeting criterion, such as a wrong location or obsolete ad schedule, from a Google Ads campaign. Find criterion IDs with list_campaign_criteria.

Instructions

Removes a single targeting criterion (e.g. a wrong location or an obsolete ad schedule) from a campaign.

Find criterion ids with list_campaign_criteria. Removing a criterion only changes targeting; it does not touch ads, keywords, or budgets.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaign_id`	Yes	The campaign the criterion belongs to.
`customer_id`	Yes	The Google Ads account.
`criterion_id`	Yes	The criterion to remove.
`validate_only`	No	If True, only validates the request.

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful scope disclosure -- removal affects targeting only and leaves ads/keywords/budgets untouched -- which helps the agent reason about blast radius. It doesn't mention irreversibility or validation-only behavior (that lives in the schema).

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and followed by the id-lookup pointer and scope boundary. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive scope is stated. For a mutation tool the description covers what is affected and how to source the id; only minor gaps like reversibility/validation-only guidance remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented structurally. The description only indirectly helps by pointing to the id-lookup tool; it adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (removes) plus resource (targeting criterion) and scopes it to a single criterion of a campaign, with concrete examples ('wrong location', 'obsolete ad schedule'). Clearly differentiable from create/update siblings and from list_campaign_criteria.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to `list_campaign_criteria` for obtaining criterion ids, which is a real prerequisite. It also clarifies scope boundaries (does not touch ads, keywords, budgets). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative removal tools are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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