Google Ads by Get MCP Ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

google ads get insights

google_ads_get_insights

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query Google Ads performance insights with intelligent query planning that auto-generates GAQL and resolves metric/segment incompatibilities by splitting queries.

Instructions

Query Google Ads performance insights with intelligent query planning. Auto-generates GAQL, handles metric/segment incompatibilities by splitting queries. Use google-ads://metrics for available metrics, google-ads://dimensions for dimensions.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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
`metrics`	Yes	Metric keys (e.g., impressions, clicks, cost_micros, conversions)
`orderBy`	No	Optional GAQL field to order by, e.g. metrics.impressions or campaign.name
`resource`	No	GAQL FROM clause resource type (campaign, ad_group, ad_group_ad, keyword_view, shopping_performance_view, asset_group, geographic_view, video, search_term_view, landing_page_view, etc.)	campaign
`startDate`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID (without dashes, e.g., 1234567890)
`datePreset`	No	Predefined date range
`dimensions`	No	Dimension keys (e.g., date, campaignName, device)
`orderDirection`	No	Sort direction for the selected ordering field.	DESC

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 30, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it generates GAQL automatically and splits queries when metrics and segments are incompatible, which tells the agent why results may come from multiple underlying queries.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and resource pointers trailing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all 10 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description covers the non-obvious behavior well; only the absence of routing guidance against sibling query tools keeps it from a 5.

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 is already documented in the schema, including the resource enum-like list and date formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Query Google Ads performance insights') and adds the key mechanism ('auto-generates GAQL'). It implies differentiation from google_ads_run_gaql (high-level vs raw query) but never names that sibling, so an agent has to infer the boundary.

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?

Points to the google-ads://metrics and google-ads://dimensions resources for valid keys, which is genuine usage help. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over google_ads_run_gaql, google_ads_get_campaigns, or the specialized report tools in the sibling list.

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

Deploy Server