Retrieve essential Google Ads account details, including name, currency, and timezone. Use this tool to check account configuration before running campaigns or managing settings.
Get details for a Google Ads account (name, currency, timezone, etc.).
Args: customer_id: Google Ads customer ID (e.g., '123-456-7890' or '1234567890').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with those hints. The description adds only a hint of the returned fields rather than deeper behavior such as access requirements, error cases, or output structure, which is acceptable for a simple read-only getter but not rich.
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 very concise, front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, and then clearly documents the argument. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.
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?
The tool is simple and the annotations cover read-only safety, but there is no output schema and the description only says 'etc.' rather than enumerating the expected response fields. It also does not clarify that this is for account configuration details rather than performance data, leaving minor ambiguity relative to nearby account-related tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so effectively. The Args section explains the single parameter and gives concrete valid formats ('123-456-7890' or '1234567890'), which is essential for correct invocation.
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') and resource ('details for a Google Ads account'), and gives characteristic fields such as name, currency, and timezone. It is clearly distinct from list_accessible_accounts and get_account_hierarchy, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_account_performance_summary.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies that it is for account-level details like name/currency/timezone, but it does not state exclusions, alternatives, or when to prefer another tool such as get_account_performance_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.