google-ads-mcp

Set campaign daily budget

set_campaign_budget

Idempotent

Update a campaign's daily budget in account currency. Refuses to change shared budgets unless explicitly allowed, preventing unintended impact on other campaigns.

Instructions

Change a campaign's daily budget, given in account currency units (e.g. 5.50). Looks up the campaign's budget resource first. Refuses to change a shared budget unless allow_shared is true, since that affects every campaign using it.

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "daily_amount": "<daily_amount>"
    },
    "name": "set_campaign_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaign_id`	Yes
`customer_id`	No	Google Ads customer ID (10 digits, dashes allowed). Defaults to GOOGLE_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID.
`allow_shared`	No
`daily_amount`	Yes	New daily budget in currency units

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it looks up the budget resource first and refuses to change shared budgets unless allow_shared is true. This gives agents a clearer picture of side effects and guardrails.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it states the action, gives a concrete example, and explains the key guardrail in two sentences with no redundant wording.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, the input unit, and the shared-budget restriction. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but no output schema is provided and the tool's behavior is reasonably complete for a mutation action.

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?

The description adds meaning to daily_amount by specifying account currency units and explains allow_shared through the shared-budget refusal behavior. The schema already documents customer_id, and campaign_id is self-evident from the tool purpose.

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 clearly states the action ('Change a campaign's daily budget') and the specific resource (campaign budget), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on statuses, keywords, or reports.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when changing a daily budget) and provides important caveats about shared budgets and currency units, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools.

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