Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-ads-mcp

google-ads-mcp

Official
by googleads
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Labels Manage Labels

labels_manage_labels
Destructive

Create, update, or remove Google Ads label resources, with a validate-only step and checksum to confirm changes before applying them.

Instructions

Manages Label resources. Supports CREATE, UPDATE, and REMOVE operations.

Propose & Confirm Workflow (validate_only and checksum):

  1. Call manage_labels with validate_only=True (the default). After validation passes, the tool returns structured change_items and a checksum without committing changes.

  2. Present the change_items to the user and wait for explicit user approval.

  3. Only after user confirmation, call manage_labels with validate_only=False along with the exact same parameters and the checksum returned by the previous validate_only=True call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "labels_manage_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe name of the label. Required for CREATE, optional for UPDATE.
checksumNoChecksum of the validated operation returned by a prior `validate_only=True` call. Required when `validate_only=False`.
label_idNoThe ID of the label (e.g., '456'). Required for UPDATE and REMOVE.
operationYesThe operation to perform. Must be 'CREATE', 'UPDATE', or 'REMOVE'.
customer_idYesGoogle Ads Customer ID (digits or hyphenated, e.g. '1234567890').
descriptionNoDescription of the label. Optional.
validate_onlyNoIf True (default), validates the request and returns proposed `change_items` and a `checksum` without mutating the label. If False, requires `checksum` from a prior `validate_only=True` call to commit the mutation.
background_colorNoBackground color in HTML hex format (e.g., '#FF0000'). Optional.
login_customer_idNoOptional manager customer ID to use as the login-customer-id header.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.0.6

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this as a destructive mutation, and the description adds important behavior: validate_only defaults to true, returns change_items and checksum without mutating, and commit requires that checksum. It does not detail what exactly REMOVE destroys or how checksum expiry or failures behave, but the critical gating workflow is disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the tool purpose and then gives a numbered workflow that is easy to follow. It has some repetition of schema-stated defaults and requirements, and it refers to the tool as manage_labels rather than the exact name labels_manage_labels.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description covers the crucial validation and confirmation lifecycle. It leaves sibling differentiation and edge-case behavior unaddressed, but the information needed for correct invocation is largely present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics beyond the schema, especially the coupling between validate_only, checksum, and the requirement to pass the exact same parameters on commit.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool manages Label resources and enumerates CREATE, UPDATE, and REMOVE operations. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling labels_manage_label_associations, so an agent must infer that distinction from the tool names.

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?

It gives a clear propose-and-confirm workflow for validate_only and checksum, including when to commit versus validate. It does not explain when to choose this label CRUD tool over label-association management or other sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools