List all client accounts under a Google Ads manager (MCC) account by providing the manager customer ID, so you can identify accounts to analyze or manage.
List the client accounts under a manager (MCC) account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manager_customer_id | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the parent/child relationship between the MCC and its client accounts, and says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what fields come back beyond what the output schema already provides.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping detail ('under a manager (MCC) account') leads the sentence. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted elsewhere.
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 return values need not be described. But for a listing tool, the description omits ID format, whether results are paginated or filtered, and how it relates to the sibling google_ads_list_accounts — too thin given 0% parameter coverage and multiple look-alike siblings.
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 there is one required parameter, manager_customer_id, whose expected format (bare digits vs. dashed formatting, 10-digit MCC ID) is not explained anywhere. The description does not compensate for this gap at all.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the client accounts') and scopes it to accounts under a manager (MCC) account, which is more precise than the tool name alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling google_ads_list_accounts, leaving ambiguity about which listing tool applies.
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 versus google_ads_list_accounts or google_ads_query, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that the caller must hold MCC credentials for the manager_customer_id). The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.