Set a Google Ads ad to enabled, paused, or removed by specifying customer, ad group, and ad IDs for immediate status control.
Set an ad's status (enable, pause, or remove).
Args: customer_id: Google Ads customer ID. ad_group_id: Ad group ID containing the ad. ad_id: Ad ID. status: New status -- 'ENABLED', 'PAUSED', or 'REMOVED'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ad_id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| ad_group_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?
Annotations already convey that this is a destructive, non-read-only mutation. The description adds useful context by clarifying that 'remove' is implemented as a REMOVED status rather than a separate deletion action. However, it does not explain consequences such as reversibility, effect on delivery, or response behavior.
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: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a clean Args block. Every line contributes necessary information with no filler.
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 low-complexity status-setting tool, the description gives all required parameter semantics and the allowed operational states. It does not describe return values or side effects, and there is no output schema, but the operation is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly with the provided information.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains all four parameters in plain language and explicitly lists the allowed status values ('ENABLED', 'PAUSED', 'REMOVED'), which the schema does not provide.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set an ad's status', and enumerates the three possible states (enable, pause, remove). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on ad groups, campaigns, or other ad fields.
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 makes it clear this tool is for ad-level status changes, so usage context is implied by the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like set_ad_group_status or update_ad_group, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.