Google Ads by Get MCP Ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

google ads get simulations

google_ads_get_simulations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve bidding simulations for campaigns, ad groups, or portfolio strategies to forecast performance and plan budgets. Returns projected points or metadata.

Instructions

Read-only planning/forecast query for campaign, ad group, or portfolio bidding simulations. Returns simulation metadata and projected point lists when available, with a metadata fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`level`	No	Simulation resource level to query	campaign
`limit`	No	Maximum number of returned items or rows. The declared bounds and default apply; use pagination for additional results.
`adGroupId`	No	Optional ad group ID filter for ad_group simulations
`campaignId`	No	Optional campaign ID filter. Applies directly to campaign simulations and as campaign context for ad group simulations.
`customerId`	Yes	Google Ads customer ID (without dashes, e.g., 1234567890)
`typeFilter`	No	Optional SimulationType enum, e.g. BUDGET, TARGET_CPA, TARGET_ROAS, CPC_BID
`biddingStrategyId`	No	Optional portfolio bidding strategy ID filter for bidding_strategy simulations
`simulationEndDate`	No	Optional maximum simulation end date YYYY-MM-DD
`modificationMethod`	No	Optional SimulationModificationMethod enum, e.g. UNIFORM, SCALING, DEFAULT
`simulationStartDate`	No	Optional minimum simulation start date YYYY-MM-DD

Output Schema

TableJSON 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.

First observedv2.0.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a planning/forecast query, returns metadata and projected point lists, and has a metadata fallback. It could further disclose pagination or fallback semantics, but the added context justifies a score above baseline.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose ('Read-only planning/forecast query'), and states the return behavior and fallback without waste. Every clause earns its place, and it avoids restating schema details.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the tool has rich parameter documentation, and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. Minor omissions such as explicit pagination hints and a clearer statement of when the metadata fallback occurs are the only gaps.

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 the schema thoroughly documents every parameter, including defaults, bounds, patterns, and cross-references. The description does not need to duplicate that detail; its high-level mention of resource levels and point lists adds only marginal clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies a read-only planning/forecast query for campaign, ad group, or portfolio bidding simulations, and explicitly states that it returns simulation metadata and projected point lists with a metadata fallback. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like google_ads_get_campaigns or google_ads_run_gaql by naming a specific resource type and output behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description conveys when to use the tool: for simulations/forecasts at campaign, ad group, or bidding strategy level. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for keyword forecasts use generate_keyword_forecast_metrics'), but the resource-level scope and read-only intent provide clear context. No misleading guidance.

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

Deploy Server