Provides tools for listing Google Ads accounts and running GAQL queries to retrieve Google Ads data.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Google Ads MCP list my Google Ads accounts"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
This is not an officially supported Google product.
This is the Google Ads Model Context Protocol (MCP) server designed to provide a standardized way to integrate an LLM with Google Ads.
Tool | Parameters | Description |
| Lists all available Google Ads accounts | |
|
| Runs a Google Ads query |
To learn more about GAQL, try out the Google Ads Query Builder and ensure you have a valid query.
Related MCP server: @vibeads/mcp
Use
this documentation
to set up a service account for the Google Ads API client library. This will
require you to also set up a Google Cloud project and enable the Google Ads API.
Create a google-ads.yaml file as defined
here.
Here's an example:
# google-ads.yaml
developer_token: INSERT_DEVELOPER_TOKEN_HERE
login_customer_id: INSERT_LOGIN_CUSTOMER_ID_HERE
json_key_file_path: JSON_KEY_FILE_PATH_HERE
use_proto_plus: trueRun the Google Ads MCP server locally:
uv run serverInstall the Gemini CLI by following the instructions here.
Add the Google Ads MCP server to your ~/.gemini/settings.json file. Here's an
example:
{
"mcpServers": {
"googleAds": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory path/to/google_ads_mcp",
"run",
"server"
]
}
}
}Learn more about MCP servers and Gemini CLI.
Want to contribute? Learn more
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| login_customer_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0list_accountssearch_streamScored across 2 tools
Tool names suggest distinct functions (listing accounts vs. streaming search results), but lack of descriptions introduces slight ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (list_accounts, search_stream).
Only 2 tools for a large platform like Google Ads is far too few, leaving most functionality uncovered.
The tool surface is severely incomplete, missing core operations like campaign management, budget control, or report generation.
Run Google Ads and Meta Ads from ChatGPT or Claude: audit wasted spend, create and manage campaigns.
Build, edit and sync Google, Microsoft, Reddit and Meta ad campaigns from your assistant.
Run Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok and LinkedIn Ads from Claude or ChatGPT. Writes need approval.
