Retrieve asset groups within a Performance Max campaign by providing Google Ads customer ID and campaign ID.
List asset groups in a Performance Max campaign.
Args: customer_id: Google Ads customer ID. campaign_id: PMax campaign ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the Performance Max scoping constraint but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits, so the added value over annotations is modest.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact two-item argument list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 with two string parameters and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe what the returned asset groups contain or whether pagination applies, which is a notable gap for an agent consuming the result.
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 carry parameter meaning. The Args section defines customer_id as 'Google Ads customer ID' and campaign_id as 'PMax campaign ID', adding important semantic context absent from the raw schema. It lacks format examples, but the core meaning is clearly conveyed.
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 'List asset groups in a Performance Max campaign' uses a specific verb and resource and clearly scopes the operation to PMax campaigns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ad_groups (ad groups) and get_asset_group_details (single asset group).
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 implies usage context by restricting to Performance Max campaigns, telling an agent this tool applies to PMax campaign asset groups. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative sibling (e.g., list_ad_groups) to choose, so the agent must infer the selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.