Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_assets_upload_image

Uploads a local JPG, PNG, or GIF image (max 5 MB) to Google Ads, creating an image asset for Responsive Display Ads or image extensions.

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

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.
approvalNoExternal approval this change carries out (recorded and shown, never verified)
expectedNoExpected effects [{metric, direction, target?, horizon_days?, primary?}], exactly one primary:true when several; metric cpa/cpc/cpl/cpm/conversions/cvr/ctr/roas/cost/spend/clicks/impressions; direction up/down/hold.
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.
decision_idNoA proposed decision this change carries out.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.33.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected / description
      Previous value: -"Expected effects [{metric, direction, target?, horizon_days?}]; metric cpa/cpc/cpl/cpm/conversions/cvr/ctr/roas/cost/spend/clicks/impressions; direction up/down/hold."New value: +"Expected effects [{metric, direction, target?, horizon_days?, primary?}], exactly one primary:true when several; metric cpa/cpc/cpl/cpm/conversions/cvr/ctr/roas/cost/spend/clicks/impressions; direction up/down/hold."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.28.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "External approval this change carries out (recorded and shown, never verified)",
+  "properties": {
+    "approved_at": {
+      "maxLength": 64,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "approved_by": {
+      "maxLength": 80,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reference": {
+      "maxLength": 128,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reference",
+    "approved_by",
+    "approved_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.26.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / decision_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A proposed decision this change carries out.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Expected effects [{metric, direction, target?, horizon_days?}]; metric cpa/cpc/cpl/cpm/conversions/cvr/ctr/roas/cost/spend/clicks/impressions; direction up/down/hold.",
+  "maxItems": 12,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  4. 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"
+}
  5. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.37
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  6. Addedv0.9.12
  7. Removedv0.9.6
  8. Addedv0.9.2
  9. Removedv0.9.1
  10. Addedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so: it declares the operation mutating, says removal must go through the Google Ads UI with no delete tool, discloses the side effect of reading a local file and POSTing raw bytes, and lists validation limits (5 MB, jpg/jpeg/png/gif). It even specifies the return shape.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then behavioral caveats and next step. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; slightly packed with multiple clauses but no filler.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs: what it does, the exact return object fields (compensating for the absent output schema), mutation/irreversibility, validation rules, filesystem side effect, and the follow-up tool. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including file_path constraints and the name default. The description reinforces the file validation rules but adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (Upload), a specific resource (local image file to Google Ads as an image Asset), and names the downstream use cases (Responsive Display Ads, image extensions), which cleanly separates it from sibling upload/list tools like google_ads_image_assets_list and meta_ads_images_upload_file.

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?

Explains the context of use (assets for RDAs/image extensions) and explicitly routes the agent to the next tool: 'For creating the ad that references this asset afterwards use google_ads_ads_create_display.' It does not state when NOT to use it or name a competing upload sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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