Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_assets_upload_image

Upload a local image to Google Ads as an image asset for responsive display ads or image extensions. Validates file type and size (jpg/png/gif, ≤5 MB) and returns the new asset ID.

Instructions

Upload a local image file to Google Ads as an image Asset for use in Responsive Display Ads or image extensions. Returns {resource_name ('customers//assets/'), id (asset id as string), name (asset display name or basename)}. Mutating — creates a new Asset row in the customer account; removal must be done through the Google Ads UI (there is no corresponding delete tool). The file is validated before upload: max 5 MB, extensions must be jpg/jpeg/png/gif. Side effect: reads file_path from the local filesystem of the MCP server host and POSTs the raw bytes to Google. For creating the ad that references this asset afterwards use google_ads_ads_create_display.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional display name for the asset as shown in the Google Ads UI. Defaults to the file's basename when omitted.
reasonNoWhy this change is being made: one or two sentences naming the evidence and the expected effect. Stored in the journal and on the action_log entry this call produces, for the operator and the next session.
file_pathYesAbsolute or MCP-server-relative path to the image file on the host running mureo (e.g. '/Users/me/ads/hero.png'). Must have a .jpg/.jpeg/.png/.gif extension and be <= 5 MB.
customer_idNoGoogle Ads customer ID as a 10-digit string without dashes (e.g. '1234567890'). Optional — falls back to GOOGLE_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID / GOOGLE_ADS_LOGIN_CUSTOMER_ID from the configured credentials when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.20.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Why this change is being made: one or two sentences naming the evidence and the expected effect. Stored in the journal and on the action_log entry this call produces, for the operator and the next session.",
+  "maxLength": 500,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.37
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Addedv0.9.12
  4. Removedv0.9.6
  5. Addedv0.9.2
  6. Removedv0.9.1
  7. Addedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses mutating behavior ('creates a new Asset row'), the filesystem side effect ('reads file_path from the local filesystem... POSTs the raw bytes'), validation limits (max 5 MB, jpg/jpeg/png/gif), and irreversibility via UI-only removal. This far exceeds the minimum needed for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then returns, mutation status, validation, side effect, and next-step alternative in logical order. Every sentence adds operational value and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential runtime context: return shape, mutation semantics, validation rules, side effects, deletion path, and the next tool to call. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without consulting additional sources.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and file constraints. The description adds behavioral context about file_path being read from the MCP server host, but little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Upload a local image file to Google Ads as an image Asset') and ties it to concrete use cases ('Responsive Display Ads or image extensions'). It further distinguishes the tool by explicitly noting there is no corresponding delete tool and by naming the follow-up ad-creation sibling, making it easy to tell apart from sibling upload/list tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides explicit guidance: 'For creating the ad that references this asset afterwards use google_ads_ads_create_display' and warns that removal must be done through the Google Ads UI because no delete tool exists. This clearly tells an agent when to use this tool and when to use an alternative, with no inference required.

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