google-ads-mcp

Run Keyword Planner

run_keyword_planner

Generate Google Ads keyword ideas from seed keywords or a page URL, and refine results by language, location, and network targeting for better campaign planning.

Instructions

Generate keyword ideas using Google Ads KeywordPlanIdeaService.

This tool allows you to generate keyword ideas based on seed keywords or a page URL. You can specify targeting parameters such as language, location, and network to refine your keyword suggestions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end_year`	No	Optional end year for historical data (defaults to current year)
`keywords`	Yes	A list of seed keywords to generate ideas from
`page_url`	No	Optional page URL related to your business to generate ideas from
`end_month`	No	Optional end month for historical data (defaults to current month)
`manager_id`	No	Manager ID if access type is 'managed'
`start_year`	No	Optional start year for historical data (defaults to previous year)
`customer_id`	Yes	The Google Ads customer ID (10 digits, no dashes)
`start_month`	No	Optional start month for historical data (defaults to JANUARY)

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral context. It only states the core function and does not mention authentication, manager/access requirements, external service dependencies, latency, or any caveats. It also references 'language, location, and network' parameters that do not exist in the schema, which is misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main action, but the final sentence about targeting parameters does not earn its place because those parameters are not present in the input schema. This inaccuracy makes the overall structure less reliable.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and only a generic description, important context is missing: prerequisites like customer ID format or manager access, relationship between keywords and page_url, date-range semantics, and any authentication notes. The output schema helps, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently in unusual cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only high-level context about seed keywords and page URL, which the schema already documents. No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate keyword ideas using Google Ads KeywordPlanIdeaService.' It also names the two input modes (seed keywords or page URL), which distinguishes it clearly from the sibling reporting and GAQL tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the use case clear: generate keyword ideas, optionally refined by targeting settings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the siblings this is the only keyword-idea-generation tool, so an agent can infer when to use it. The misleading mention of language/location/network parameters slightly weakens the guidance.

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

Deploy Server