Google Ads MCP Server

create_sitelink_assets

Create Google Ads sitelink extensions by providing customer ID and sitelink details like link text, final URLs, and descriptions to add more links to your ads.

Instructions

Create sitelink extensions

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>",
      "sitelinks": "<sitelinks>"
    },
    "name": "create_sitelink_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and does not mention required nested fields, permissions, response behavior, idempotency, or potential side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a bit more structural guidance.

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?

Given the presence of a nearly identical sibling tool, the lack of usage guidance, and no output schema or annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection. It leaves important gaps around input requirements and expected results.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage; only 'customerId' is described. The description adds no meaning to the 'sitelinks' parameter or its nested fields like 'linkText' and 'finalUrls', so the agent must infer semantics from names alone.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Create sitelink extensions'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'create_sitelink_extensions', which appears to be nearly identical in name and purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_sitelink_extensions' or other asset creation tools. The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent unsure which tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server