Growth Mind Ads MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_mutation_batch

Validate a batch of Google Ads create, update, or remove operations without applying changes, producing prepared operations and a summary for explicit approval before any mutation.

Instructions

Validate an exact create/update/remove batch without changing Google Ads.

Present the returned prepared_operations and operation_summary to the account owner and wait for their explicit approval. Do not call the apply tool in the same turn unless the account owner had already approved this exact customer and payload.

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": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "validate_mutation_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operations`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation does not change Google Ads, names the returned validation artifacts, and imposes an explicit approval-gating rule before apply. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or validation criteria, but the core safety behavior is unusually well specified.

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 response is front-loaded and efficient: the first sentence states the action and non-mutation guarantee, while the remaining sentences add essential approval workflow constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description is complete on workflow, safety, and approval behavior, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves the operations payload structure and validation criteria too implicit for an agent to build a correct batch without other context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It only implies that customer_id identifies the customer and operations is a create/update/remove payload; it does not explain the operation object shape, required fields, or mutation type structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: validate an exact create/update/remove batch without changing Google Ads. It clearly distinguishes this from the apply sibling by emphasizing that validation is non-mutating, and the create/update/remove scope separates it from validate_create_batch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: present prepared_operations and operation_summary to the account owner, wait for explicit approval, and do not call apply in the same turn unless prior approval covered this exact customer and payload. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance tied directly to the apply alternative.

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

Deploy Server