Google Ads MCP Server

get_asset_performance

Retrieve asset performance metrics from Google Ads using a customer ID. Optionally specify an asset ID for targeted analysis.

Instructions

Get asset performance metrics

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_asset_performance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assetId`	No	Optional asset ID
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether assetId is optional, what happens when it is omitted, how metrics are aggregated, or whether results are time-bound. This is a significant transparency gap for a performance metrics tool.

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 filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it is terse to the point of under-specification. For conciseness alone, it earns a 4, though it sacrifices substance.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what metrics are included, how assetId affects the result, or any usage context. It is minimally adequate but leaves many questions unanswered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it relies entirely on the schema to explain assetId and customerId, which is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 'Get asset performance metrics' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (asset performance metrics), but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling performance tools like get_campaign_performance or get_extension_performance. A more precise statement about asset-level metrics would differentiate it further.

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, nor any context about scope, date ranges, or required fields. The description simply states a function without any usage scenarios or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server