Google Ads MCP Server

create_shared_budget

Create a shared budget to pool spending across multiple campaigns. Provide customer ID, budget name, amount in micros, and delivery method to control costs.

Instructions

Create a shared budget for multiple campaigns

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>",
      "amountMicros": "<amountMicros>"
    },
    "name": "create_shared_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Budget name
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID
`amountMicros`	Yes	Budget amount in micros
`deliveryMethod`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the action ('create') and introduces 'shared budget' but doesn't explain implications like shared budget semantics, defaults for deliveryMethod, whether it replaces existing budgets, or permission requirements. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler, immediately stating the purpose. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description omits context about required permissions, return values, or how to associate the budget with campaigns. Given the tool's complexity, this is inadequate for full understanding.

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?

Schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no information about any parameter, including the undocumented deliveryMethod enum or how amountMicros should be formatted. It doesn't compensate for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies a distinct resource ('shared budget') with its scope ('for multiple campaigns'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like create_campaign or get_shared_budgets. It's a clear, non-tautological statement.

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 over alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., customerId must exist), relationship to campaigns, or when one might create individual budgets instead. It merely states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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

Deploy Server