Google Ads MCP Server

create_bidding_strategy

Create Google Ads automated bidding strategies to hit target CPA, ROAS, or maximize conversions. Specify customer ID and strategy type to optimize campaign performance.

Instructions

Create an automated bidding strategy

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>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "create_bidding_strategy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Strategy name
`type`	Yes
`targetCpa`	No	Target CPA in currency
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID
`targetRoas`	No	Target ROAS

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Create' implies a write operation, but there is no disclosure about permissions, idempotency, side effects, or the returned resource. It also omits how the type enum maps to targetCpa/targetRoas.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It lacks information about type-specific parameters, response format, and operational constraints, leaving the agent to rely on the incomplete schema.

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 the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra semantics, such as conditional requirements between 'type' and target metrics, keeping it at the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'automated bidding strategy', clearly indicating the action. It differentiates from read-only sibling tools like get_bidding_strategies, though it does not explicitly mention strategy types or scope.

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 such as update_bid_adjustments or create_campaign. It does not state prerequisites, such as an existing customer account, or the relationship between this strategy and campaign creation.

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

Deploy Server