Google Ads MCP Server

upload_image_asset

Upload base64-encoded image data with a customer ID and asset name to create a Google Ads image asset for campaigns.

Instructions

Upload image asset for ads

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>",
      "imageData": "<imageData>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "upload_image_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Asset name
`imageData`	Yes	Base64 encoded image data
`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 only reiterates the action of uploading, implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects like whether an existing asset is overwritten, required authentication, file format restrictions, or what the response contains.

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 sentence, entirely free of fluff. It is appropriately concise, though it adds little beyond the function name. The structure is acceptable for such a simple statement.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain return values, upload constraints (e.g., image type/size), or whether this is a create operation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to reason about.

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 covers 100% of parameters with brief descriptions, so the parameter semantics are already documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Upload image asset for ads' clearly states the verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_image_assets and get_video_assets. It could be more explicit about whether it creates a new asset or replaces an existing one, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to upload an image asset versus creating an asset group or using get_image_assets. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'for ads', with no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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

Deploy Server