Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Ads MCP Server

Google Ads MCP Server

by MaxGhenis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

enable_ad_group

Activate an ad group in Google Ads using its ad group ID. Optionally specify a customer ID or use dry run mode to validate changes before execution.

Instructions

Enable an ad group.

Args: ad_group_id: Ad group ID to enable customer_id: Target customer ID (optional if set in config) dry_run: If True, validate but don't execute

Returns: Result with success status

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ad_group_id": "<ad_group_id>"
    },
    "name": "enable_ad_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ad_group_idYes
customer_idNo
dry_runNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description briefly mentions the function and the dry_run parameter behavior, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on other entities), permissions needed, or behavior when already enabled.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured with a clear header and docstring-style parameter list. No unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description includes a return note, but lacks context on permissions, idempotency, or behavior in edge cases. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although schema has 0% coverage, the description explains each parameter's purpose concisely (e.g., ad_group_id as ID to enable, customer_id as optional, dry_run for validation). This adds value beyond the type-only schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action (enable) and resource (ad group). It distinguishes from siblings like pause_ad_group by the action verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from create_ad_group or others.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pause_ad_group or create_ad_group. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools