google-ads-mcp

Get Keyword Performance

get_keyword_performance

Pull keyword-level performance metrics and quality scores from Google Ads, optionally filtered by campaign and date range, to identify optimization opportunities.

Instructions

Get performance metrics for keywords including quality scores.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max number of keywords to return (default: 500, max: 1000)
`date_range`	No	Date range for metrics (default: LAST_30_DAYS)	LAST_30_DAYS
`manager_id`	No	Manager ID if access type is 'managed'
`campaign_id`	No	Optional — filter results to a specific campaign ID
`customer_id`	Yes	The Google Ads customer ID (10 digits, no dashes)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Get performance metrics'—a read-only behavior already obvious from the name. It omits pagination behavior, default limits, date-range semantics, data freshness, or any managed-account access nuances.

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 nine-word sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It earns its place but lacks the scoping structure that would make it a 5.

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 presence of a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage reduces the description's burden, but it still offers no guidance on defaults, when to choose this over siblings, or access requirements. It is viable for invocation after reading the schema, but not comprehensive for confident tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; all parameter descriptions are already in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves, and its mention of 'quality scores' refers to output metrics, not input semantics.

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 ('Get'), a clearly defined resource ('performance metrics for keywords'), and a distinguishing detail ('including quality scores'). This makes it easy to separate from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_ad_performance.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_gaql or other performance reports. The only usage signal is the resource name 'keywords,' which is implicit rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server