Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GHB MCP

GHB MCP

by gutohbarbosa-coder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

google_ads_search

Read-only

Execute read-only GAQL SELECT queries on authorized Google Ads accounts, using pageToken to retrieve paginated results for reporting and analysis.

Instructions

Executa uma consulta SELECT GAQL em conta autorizada; aceita pageToken.

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": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "google_ads_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
pageTokenNo
customerIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-rc.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the account must be authorized and that pageToken enables pagination, which is useful context, but says nothing about rate limits, result caps, or error behavior on invalid GAQL.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is terse to the point of leaving gaps, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and three parameters, the description is too thin: customerId is unexplained, the return shape is unknown, and pagination behavior beyond 'accepts pageToken' is not described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It signals that 'query' must be a GAQL SELECT statement and that 'pageToken' is for paging, but customerId and its 10-digit format are left entirely to the schema pattern.

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?

States a specific verb (executa) and resource (consulta SELECT GAQL) scoped to an authorized account. GAQL is unique to Google Ads, which implicitly separates it from the ga4/gtm siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over ga4_report or gtm_read, nor any prerequisite beyond 'conta autorizada'. The read-only nature implied by SELECT is the only usage signal.

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