Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Ads MCP Server

Google Ads MCP Server

by anegash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_ads

Fetch ads from Google Ads for a customer or filter by a specific ad group ID to get targeted ad data.

Instructions

Get ads for a customer or ad group

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": "get_ads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adGroupIdNoOptional ad group ID to filter by
customerIdYesGoogle Ads customer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Get ads', which implies a read operation, but does not clarify pagination, return structure, or the relationship between required customerId and optional adGroupId. The phrase 'customer or ad group' is also ambiguous about parameter requirements.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, immediately conveying the tool's purpose.

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 a simple schema, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., return format, filtering behavior). It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps in expectations for an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description's 'customer or ad group' aligns with the schema but adds no new format or semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('ads') with clear scoping ('customer or ad group'), making the purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_ad_groups or get_campaigns by focusing on ads, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_ad_groups or get_keywords. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools