List all Google Ads customer accounts accessible with your current credentials, including enabled child accounts under manager accounts.
List Google Ads customer accounts accessible with the current credentials. If an accessible customer is a manager account, also attempts to include enabled child accounts from customer_client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute real behavioral context: the manager-account traversal is disclosed with the honest qualifier 'attempts', and the credential scope defines the access boundary. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, pagination, or output limits, leaving some traits to inference from the verb 'List'.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first delivers the core purpose, the second the behavioral nuance. Every clause earns its place, and the essential information is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and the only non-obvious behavior — nearly all an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain: there is no output schema to describe the return shape, and no guidance disambiguates it from google_ads_get_account_hierarchy, but these are minor at this simplicity level.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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?
States a clear verb-resource pair — 'List Google Ads customer accounts' — scoped to 'accessible with the current credentials'. The second sentence adds a behavioral nuance (including enabled child accounts from customer_client) that helps separate it from siblings like google_ads_get_account_details. The purpose is unmistakable.
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 implies its usage context — enumerating the accounts reachable with the current credentials — but never states when not to use it or names a preferable alternative. An overlapping sibling, google_ads_get_account_hierarchy, exists in the sibling list and is not contrasted, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.