Google Ads MCP Server

generate_forecast_metrics

Forecast traffic and conversions for your Google Ads keywords by providing a customer ID and keyword list, with optional date range and bid settings, to plan campaign performance.

Instructions

Generate traffic and conversion forecasts

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>",
      "keywordTexts": "<keywordTexts>"
    },
    "name": "generate_forecast_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endDate`	No
`startDate`	No
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID
`keywordTexts`	Yes
`maxCpcBidMicros`	No

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral context, but it only states the action. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific date ranges, or what the output format is, nor any limitations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler words, front-loading the core action. It is concise and structurally clear, but lacks substance; however, this dimension measures economy, not depth.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states the purpose, leaving out operational details like required inputs, optional parameters, and expected results, making it insufficient for correct invocation in complex scenarios.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is only 20% (only customerId is described) and the description does not elaborate on any parameter. It fails to explain the role of keywordTexts, dates, or bid amounts, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid request.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'generate' with resource 'traffic and conversion forecasts', clearly stating what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the function is unique enough among the listed siblings to earn a high score.

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 get_bid_simulations or get_keyword_ideas. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server