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 enabling an entity

enable_entity

Draft enabling a paused campaign, ad group, ad, or keyword and get a preview with a plan_id; nothing changes until confirm_and_apply applies it.

Instructions

Draft enabling a paused campaign, ad group, ad, or keyword — returns a PREVIEW.

Returns a preview with a plan_id (target status ENABLED); 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": {
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>",
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "enable_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYesID in the format for its type. campaign: campaign ID (e.g. "12345678"); ad_group: ad group ID (e.g. "12345678"); ad: "adGroupId~adId" (e.g. "12345678~987654"; a bare ad ID is resolved to its ad group at apply time); keyword: "adGroupId~criterionId" (e.g. "12345678~987654").
customer_idNoGoogle Ads customer ID (digits, dashes optional). Defaults to the configured account.
entity_typeYes"campaign", "ad_group", "ad", "keyword" or "asset_group" (Performance Max).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.27.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / customer_id / description
      Added value: +"Google Ads customer ID (digits, dashes optional). Defaults to\nthe configured account."
    • addedInput schema / properties / entity_id / description
      Added value: +"ID in the format for its type. campaign: campaign ID (e.g.\n\"12345678\"); ad_group: ad group ID (e.g. \"12345678\"); ad:\n\"adGroupId~adId\" (e.g. \"12345678~987654\"; a bare ad ID is resolved\nto its ad group at apply time); keyword: \"adGroupId~criterionId\"\n(e.g. \"12345678~987654\")."
    • addedInput schema / properties / entity_type / description
      Added value: +"\"campaign\", \"ad_group\", \"ad\", \"keyword\" or\n\"asset_group\" (Performance Max)."
  2. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the call produces only a preview with a plan_id, no state changes occur, and confirm_and_apply is the required follow-up. That resolves the otherwise ambiguous mutation-with-destructiveHint=false combination.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences: purpose and preview semantics first, then the confirmation dependency. The API doc link is the only extra and is legitimately useful. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the safety-relevant draft/confirm behavior. The only gap is the missing asset_group mention, which leaves a minor mismatch between the described scope and the schema's accepted values.

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 100%, so entity_id formatting, customer_id defaulting, and entity_type values are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail and notably omits asset_group from its entity list while the schema includes it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (enable) and resource set (paused campaign, ad group, ad, or keyword) and immediately frames it as a draft returning a PREVIEW. The agent can distinguish it from confirm_and_apply, pause_entity, and remove_entity 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?

Clearly signals the two-step workflow: this tool only previews, and nothing changes until confirm_and_apply applies the plan. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like pause_entity or remove_entity, but the draft-then-confirm context is unambiguous.

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