Google Ads MCP Server

remove_audience_from_campaign

Remove a specific audience from a Google Ads campaign using customer, campaign, and audience IDs to stop targeting that segment.

Instructions

Remove audience targeting from a campaign

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>",
      "campaignId": "<campaignId>",
      "audienceId": "<audienceId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_audience_from_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`audienceId`	Yes	Audience ID
`campaignId`	Yes	Campaign ID
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation (remove) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, idempotency, or any consequences beyond the immediate action. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it concise and easily parseable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple removal tool with three clearly documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about the operation's effects or how it fits into the broader workflow (e.g., what happens to the campaign after removal). Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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%, with all three parameters (audienceId, campaignId, customerId) described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the exact resource ('audience targeting from a campaign'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool add_audience_to_campaign by stating the opposite action. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where removal is appropriate. The description only states the action, leaving the usage context entirely implied by the tool name.

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

Deploy Server