get_budget_reportRetrieve campaign budgets and current spend for all active campaigns to monitor cost and manage ad spend.
Get campaign budgets and current spend for all active campaigns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manager_id | No | Manager ID if access type is 'managed' | |
| customer_id | Yes | The Google Ads customer ID (10 digits, no dashes) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (via 'Get') and scopes results to active campaigns, but it doesn't mention permissions, data freshness, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple read report, this is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the action, resource, and scope efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and only two simple parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clearly states the scope (all active campaigns) and the resource (budgets/spend). It lacks detail on optional filters or prerequisites, but these are not essential for a basic report tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (customer_id as a 10-digit ID, manager_id as optional with a default). The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect the report, so it adds no value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('campaign budgets and current spend'), and an explicit scope ('all active campaigns'). This distinguishes it from sibling performance-focused tools like get_campaign_performance, which target metrics rather than budgets/spend. An agent can immediately understand the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that performance metrics are handled by other siblings, nor does it note any conditions or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.