List campaign budgets in a Google Ads account by customer ID, with an optional limit, to review spending and inform budget decisions.
List campaign budgets in the account.
Args: customer_id: Google Ads customer ID. limit: Max budgets to return (default 100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| 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 annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only intent. It adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, default scope, or whether results may be partial.
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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a small Args block that earns its place by adding parameter context. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential calling contract: what is being listed, at what scope, and the optional limit. It is slightly thin on return shape or pagination behavior, but the annotations and simple operation make this adequate.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: customer_id is the Google Ads customer/account ID, and limit caps the number of budgets returned with a default of 100. This is meaningful beyond the bare schema titles.
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 ('List') and resource ('campaign budgets') with account scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling budget tools like create_budget or update_budget, but the read-only list action is clear enough.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when you want to list campaign budgets in a specified account. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related budget tools such as create_budget, update_budget, or get_budget_utilization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.