Google Ads MCP Server

update_bid_adjustments

Update device and location bid adjustments in Google Ads to control bids for specific targets, improving campaign performance.

Instructions

Update device/location bid adjustments

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>",
      "adjustments": "<adjustments>"
    },
    "name": "update_bid_adjustments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID
`adjustments`	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 says 'update', implying mutation, but does not explain whether adjustments are merge/replace, any permission requirements, or constraints on bid modifier values. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 that is front-loaded with the verb. It wastes no words, though it is too sparse to be fully informative.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, plus a nested 'adjustments' parameter, the description is far too minimal for safe invocation. It does not cover return behavior, side effects, or edge cases, making the tool risky to use correctly.

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 coverage is only 50% (customerId described, adjustments not). The description adds the phrase 'device/location' which hints at the adjustments structure, but it does not explain the array semantics, the meaning of bidModifier, or how resourceId is used. It provides marginal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('device/location bid adjustments'), making the basic purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'set_location_bid_adjustments', which overlaps with the location aspect.

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 like 'set_location_bid_adjustments' or 'manage_language_targets'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or decision context.

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

Deploy Server