google-ads-mcp-server

update_campaign_budget

Adjust a campaign budget's daily amount, using dry-run to validate before final confirmation.

Instructions

Change a campaign budget's daily amount (in micros). Dry run unless confirm=True.

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>",
      "budget_id": "<budget_id>",
      "amount_micros": "<amount_micros>"
    },
    "name": "update_campaign_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`budget_id`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes
`amount_micros`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the dry-run behavior with 'Dry run unless confirm=True.' This is a critical behavioral detail, especially since no annotations exist. It also implies a mutation via 'change'. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens after confirmation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and does not waste words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 4-parameter update tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action and the dry-run safety mechanism. It doesn't specify return values or side effects, but it's adequate for a straightforward budget update.

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 description adds meaning to amount_micros by specifying 'in micros' and 'daily amount', and clarifies confirm with 'Dry run unless confirm=True.' However, schema coverage is 0% and it doesn't explain customer_id or budget_id, which may be ambiguous to some agents.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Change a campaign budget's daily amount (in micros).' It specifies the verb 'change', the resource 'campaign budget', and the specific field 'daily amount' (in micros), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_campaign_budget (creation) and list_campaign_budgets (listing).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives the primary use case but does not mention when to use this versus creating a budget or updating status. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear but not fully guided.

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

Deploy Server