Google Ads MCP Server

create_labels

Create organizational labels for Google Ads accounts with customizable names, descriptions, and colors to categorize campaigns and assets.

Instructions

Create organizational labels

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>",
      "labels": "<labels>"
    },
    "name": "create_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`labels`	Yes
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose write characteristics, required permissions, idempotency, response format, or side effects, providing only a bare verb phrase.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At three words, it is succinct but under-specified. It merely restates the tool name with slightly more wording, offering no additional value; it is not a concise form of richer information but rather a placeholder.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is under-described. It doesn't explain the relationship to labels (e.g., labels must be created before applying them) or any return behavior. Sibling tools suggest a broader workflow, but the description doesn't connect to it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes customerId but not the labels array or its fields (name, description, backgroundColor). The description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the 50% 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 'Create organizational labels' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (organizational labels), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling 'apply_labels' which applies labels to resources, though it doesn't explicitly mention that distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_labels' or 'get_labeled_resources'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context signals, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role.

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

Deploy Server