Google Ads by Get MCP Ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

google ads get change events

google_ads_get_change_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch recent Google Ads change events within the last 30 days to audit account changes, with optional date, operation, resource type, and user email filters and up to 10,000 rows.

Instructions

Fetch recent change_event rows. Enforces Google Ads constraints: date window within the last 30 days and LIMIT <= 10000.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of returned items or rows. The declared bounds and default apply; use pagination for additional results.
`endDate`	No	End date YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today.
`operation`	No	Optional ResourceChangeOperation filter, e.g. CREATE, UPDATE, REMOVE
`startDate`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to 14 days before endDate.
`userEmail`	No	Optional user email filter
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID (without dashes, e.g., 1234567890)
`resourceType`	No	Optional ChangeEventResourceType filter, e.g. CAMPAIGN or AD_GROUP_AD

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Original tool result: parsed JSON when the text is JSON, otherwise the text or multiple MCP content blocks. Provider fields depend on the selected query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 30, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / endDate / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/properties/startDate"
```
addedInput schema / properties / endDate / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$"
```
addedInput schema / properties / endDate / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
removedInput schema / properties / operation / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/properties/resourceType"
```
addedInput schema / properties / operation / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Z0-9_]+$"
```
addedInput schema / properties / operation / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

addedInput schema / properties / userEmail / pattern

Added value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "properties": {},
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {},
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv2.0.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's lower bar is met. It still adds real value by disclosing the 30-day date-window constraint, which is not captured anywhere in the schema; the LIMIT <= 10000 statement largely duplicates the schema's maximum of 10000.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero padding; what the tool returns comes first, followed by the constraint worth knowing before calling. Nothing redundantly restates the name or title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations in place, the description only needs to add the constraints it does add. It is nearly complete, though it could note that results are paginated or how the 30-day window interacts with the startDate default of 14 days before endDate.

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 every parameter (including operation, resourceType, userEmail, and date defaults) is already documented in structured form. The description adds only the limit ceiling, which the schema already enforces via maximum: 10000, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch recent change_event rows,' which is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what data comes back. However, it never distinguishes itself from google_ads_run_gaql, which could also query change_event, leaving sibling disambiguation to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The recency framing ('recent change_event rows') and the 30-day constraint imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative such as google_ads_run_gaql for older or custom change-event queries. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server