Retrieve links to Google Ads accounts for a specified Google Analytics property ID to connect and review associated Ads accounts.
Returns a list of links to Google Ads accounts for a property.
Args: property_id: The Google Analytics property ID. Accepted formats are: - A number - A string consisting of 'properties/' followed by a number
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0v0.5.0v0.3.0Input schema / properties / property_id / titleRemoved value: -"Property Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_google_ads_linksArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "list_google_ads_linksOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a list of links, but it does not mention pagination, auth context, or what the returned link objects contain.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args section is slightly docstring-like but earns its place because the schema has no parameter descriptions.
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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers input format but gives only a high-level return value ('links to Google Ads accounts'). It does not describe the returned link fields, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: property_id can be a number or the string 'properties/' followed by a number. This is useful format guidance beyond the bare anyOf schema, though it could provide an explicit example.
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 specific verb and resource: returns a list of Google Ads account links for a property. It is clear enough for an agent to distinguish this from report or property-detail tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by the operation itself: use this when you need Google Ads links for a property. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as get_property_details or get_account_summaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.