Google Ads MCP Server

create_app_campaign

Create an app promotion campaign in Google Ads by specifying customer ID, campaign name, app ID, app store, and daily budget.

Instructions

Create an App promotion campaign

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": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "appId": "<appId>",
      "appStore": "<appStore>",
      "budgetAmountMicros": "<budgetAmountMicros>"
    },
    "name": "create_app_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Campaign name
`appId`	Yes	App ID
`appStore`	Yes
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID
`budgetAmountMicros`	Yes	Daily budget in micros

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely restates the tool name and provides no information about side effects, permissions, response behavior, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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?

The description is one short sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and front-loaded, earning its place as a minimal definition, though at the cost of depth in other dimensions.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and five required parameters, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain how the campaign is created, what happens on success or failure, or any operational context. The tool supports app promotion, but the description offers no useful context beyond the name.

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 description coverage is 80%, so most parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states the action (Create) and resource (App promotion campaign) clearly, and the campaign subtype distinguishes it from generic create_campaign. However, it does not elaborate on what an App promotion campaign involves, so differentiation from other campaign types is implicit rather than explicit.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_campaign, create_smart_campaign, or create_performance_max_campaign. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server