Google Ads MCP Server

get_bid_simulations

Retrieve bid simulation forecasts for campaigns or ad groups to predict performance changes at different bid levels.

Instructions

Get bid simulation 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>",
      "resourceId": "<resourceId>",
      "resourceType": "<resourceType>"
    },
    "name": "get_bid_simulations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID
`resourceId`	Yes	Campaign or ad group ID
`resourceType`	Yes

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 only states that the tool 'gets' forecasts without explaining what a bid simulation is, what data is returned, how far into the future forecasts extend, or any limitations. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. However, it is almost too terse, omitting useful context, but conciseness itself is strong.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to convey the purpose, behavior, or expected results of a bid simulation forecast. Sibling tools like generate_forecast_metrics suggest overlap, so more context is needed to avoid misuse.

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 documents customerId and resourceId with helpful descriptions, and resourceType has an enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not exceed the schema baseline. Since schema coverage is 67%, the description could have clarified the resourceType values but did not.

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 a clear resource ('bid simulation forecasts'), indicating the tool retrieves bid simulation forecast data. It is distinct enough from generic 'get' tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'generate_forecast_metrics'.

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 generate_forecast_metrics or get_budget_recommendations. There is no mention of preferred use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server