Google Ads MCP Unofficial

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Google Ads Keywords

google_ads_list_keywords

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Google Ads keyword criteria by campaign or ad group, returning keyword text, match type, status, and CPC bid micros. Filter by status, campaign, or ad group to get the exact keywords.

Instructions

List keyword criteria under a campaign or ad group. Returns criterion_id, keyword text, match type, status, and cpc_bid_micros.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No		ENABLED
`page_size`	No
`ad_group_id`	No	Optional ad group id filter.
`campaign_id`	No	Optional campaign id filter.
`customer_id`	Yes	Google Ads customer id (10 digits). Dashes optional, e.g. '1234567890' or '123-456-7890'.
`privacy_mode`	No	Optional per-call payload privacy override. Defaults to GOOGLE_ADS_PRIVACY_MODE or structured.
`response_format`	No		markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`count`	No
`error`	No
`records`	No
`has_more`	No
`privacy_mode`	No
`next_page_token`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns specific fields, which is useful but minimal beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. Minimal waste, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

With an output schema and return fields mentioned, the description covers core functionality. However, it omits pagination behavior, error handling, or prerequisites, which a complete description might include.

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 57%; the description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Parameters are adequately documented in the schema itself, so this is a baseline score.

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 lists keyword criteria under a campaign or ad group, and specifies the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like google_ads_list_ad_groups.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server