Google Ads MCP Server

create_sitelink_extensions

Create sitelink extensions for Google Ads by specifying customer ID and sitelink details, adding extra links to search ads.

Instructions

Create sitelink ad 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_extensions"
  }
}

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

C2.5/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create', implying mutation, but does not state whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is idempotent, or what happens on duplicate sitelinks. No return type or error behavior is mentioned.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient in length. However, it is under-specified and lacks the structural elements that would make it genuinely helpful, such as listing key parameters or usage notes.

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?

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested object parameters. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'sitelinks', the required structure, or what the function returns. This would leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke it correctly.

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 describes customerId with a short description, but the sitelinks parameter and its nested fields (linkText, finalUrls, description1, description2) lack descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, just saying 'sitelink ad extensions'. With only 50% schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate.

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 specific verb ('Create') and resource ('sitelink ad extensions'), clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish between this and the sibling tool 'create_sitelink_assets', which may be similar; the term 'extension' vs 'asset' could cause confusion.

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?

The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_sitelink_assets' or 'create_callout_extensions'. It does not specify any prerequisites, such as needing a campaign or customer ID, or whether this is for legacy extensions.

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

Deploy Server