Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AdLoop: Google Ads, Reddit Ads & GA4

AdLoop: Google Ads, Reddit Ads & GA4

by kLOsk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Draft sitelinks

draft_sitelinks

Generate a preview of campaign or account sitelink extensions, check each destination URL, and return warnings before you confirm and apply.

Instructions

Draft sitelink extensions for a campaign or the account — returns a PREVIEW.

Sitelinks appear as additional links below your ad, increasing click area and directing users to specific pages. Every final_url is fetched and an unreachable URL (HTTP 4xx/5xx) blocks the draft. Google recommends at least 4 sitelinks per campaign; fewer than 2 may not show. Returns a preview with a plan_id and any warnings; nothing changes until confirm_and_apply applies it.

Google Ads API: https://developers.google.com/google-ads/api/docs/start

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": {
      "sitelinks": "<sitelinks>"
    },
    "name": "draft_sitelinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoEmpty follows campaign_id. "account" links the sitelinks account-wide; they serve on every eligible campaign without sitelinks of its own. It is never inferred from an empty campaign_id.
sitelinksYesList of dicts (at least one), each with link_text (str, required, max 25 chars) — the clickable text shown; final_url (str, required) — destination URL for this sitelink; description1 (str, optional, max 35 chars) — first description line; description2 (str, optional, max 35 chars) — second description line.
campaign_idNoNumeric ID of the campaign to attach sitelinks to. Leave empty with scope="account".
customer_idNoGoogle Ads customer ID (digits, dashes optional). Defaults to the configured account.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.38.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / campaign_id / default
      Added value: +""
    • changedInput schema / properties / campaign_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric ID of the campaign to attach sitelinks to."New value: +"Numeric ID of the campaign to attach sitelinks to. Leave\nempty with scope=\"account\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Empty follows campaign_id. \"account\" links the sitelinks\naccount-wide; they serve on every eligible campaign without sitelinks\nof its own. It is never inferred from an empty campaign_id.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "campaign_id",
-  "sitelinks"
-]New value: +[
+  "sitelinks"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.27.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / campaign_id / description
      Added value: +"Numeric ID of the campaign to attach sitelinks to."
    • addedInput schema / properties / customer_id / description
      Added value: +"Google Ads customer ID (digits, dashes optional). Defaults to\nthe configured account."
    • addedInput schema / properties / sitelinks / description
      Added value: +"List of dicts (at least one), each with link_text (str,\nrequired, max 25 chars) — the clickable text shown; final_url (str,\nrequired) — destination URL for this sitelink; description1 (str,\noptional, max 35 chars) — first description line; description2\n(str, optional, max 35 chars) — second description line."
  3. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), it discloses the key non-obvious trait: every final_url is fetched and an HTTP 4xx/5xx response blocks the draft. It also describes the return (preview with plan_id and warnings) and states nothing is mutated until confirm_and_apply, which is exactly the context an agent needs for a safe-looking but stateful tool.

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 preview/plan_id warning is front-loaded and the length is reasonable for the behavioral detail conveyed. The middle sentence explaining what sitelinks are is mild advertising-primer filler, and the trailing API docs link adds little for an agent.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-parameter draft tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, validation failure mode, recommendations on count, and what is returned. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including scope/campaign_id interaction are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the campaign-vs-account targeting at a high level and adds no URL format, character-limit, or defaults detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Draft sitelink extensions for a campaign or the account") and immediately pins down the output shape ("returns a PREVIEW"). That distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like update_sitelink and from the other draft_* asset tools without opening any schema.

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 clearly frames the two-step workflow: nothing changes until confirm_and_apply applies the draft, so an agent knows this is a staging call. It doesn't explicitly route to alternatives (e.g., use update_sitelink to edit existing sitelinks, or draft_callouts for a different asset type), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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