List every Google Ads account the authenticated user can access, including account name, currency, and whether it is a manager (MCC) account, to select or verify accounts before managing campaigns.
List every Google Ads account the authenticated user can access, with name, currency and whether it is a manager (MCC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| login_customer_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already indicating a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false), the description adds some value by specifying the returned fields. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what the annotations imply.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information about what is listed and what data is returned. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of any explanation for the single parameter 'login_customer_id' leaves a notable gap in completeness, especially given the 0% schema description coverage.
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?
The single parameter 'login_customer_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it at all. This leaves the parameter's purpose and usage completely undocumented, which is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'Google Ads account', and clarifies the scope as 'every Google Ads account the authenticated user can access'. It also details the returned fields (name, currency, manager status). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool google_ads_list_client_accounts, which may cause confusion.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any conditions that would help an agent decide between this and related tools like google_ads_list_client_accounts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.