check_connectionVerifies Google Ads credentials and displays the configured account, API version, currency, and default settings so you can confirm the connection before using Keyword Planner.
Check that credentials work and show the configured account, API version, currency and defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the concrete result contents (configured account, API version, currency, defaults), which matters because there is no output schema — though it says nothing about what happens on failed credentials.
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 zero filler: the validation purpose comes first, the returned configuration fields second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no params and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden and it does so by listing the fields exposed. The only gap is error behavior — what the agent should expect when credentials are invalid — which would round out a diagnostic tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly spends no words on inputs.
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?
States a specific verb ('check') and a specific object ('credentials'), and names what is surfaced: account, API version, currency and defaults. That clearly separates it from the sibling data tools (keyword ideas, volume, forecasts), none of which validate auth, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
Usage is only implied — the wording suggests a pre-flight/health-check call, but there is no explicit 'use this before X' or 'do not use to fetch account data, use list_accessible_customers instead' guidance. An agent can infer the diagnostic role, but nothing in the text confirms when to prefer it over the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.