Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_bid_adjustments_update

Update the bid modifier for a single Google Ads campaign criterion with a partial FieldMask update, preserving all other fields. Use it to adjust bids within 0.1–10.0.

Instructions

Update the bid_modifier of a single campaign_criterion. Returns {resource_name} of the updated criterion. Mutating — FieldMask-based partial update on bid_modifier only; other criterion fields are preserved. Reversible by another call to this tool. bid_modifier must be 0.1-10.0 (0.1 = -90%, 1.0 = neutral, 10.0 = +900%); values outside this range raise ValueError. To toggle a device on/off with bid_modifier 0.0 use google_ads_device_targeting_set instead (this tool rejects 0.0).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
campaign_idYesCampaign ID as a numeric string without dashes (e.g. '23743184133'). Obtain via google_ads_campaigns_list.
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.
bid_modifierYesNew bid modifier (0.1 = -90%, 1.0 = no change, 2.0 = +100%, 10.0 = +900%). Outside 0.1-10.0 raises ValueError server-side.
criterion_idYesCriterion ID as a numeric string (e.g. '30001'). Obtain via google_ads_bid_adjustments_get or google_ads_device_targeting_get.

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. Addedv0.10.11
  7. Removedv0.10.9
  8. Addedv0.9.12
  9. Removedv0.9.6
  10. Addedv0.9.2
  11. Removedv0.9.1
  12. Addedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it declares mutation, FieldMask partial-update semantics that preserve other fields, reversibility via a second call, and the ValueError on out-of-range input. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, but the approval parameter in the schema partially covers that.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return value, then layers scope, mutation semantics, and the sibling alternative. Dense but every sentence (range rules, ValueError, alternative tool) earns its place.

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?

For an 8-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers return value ({resource_name}), mutation semantics, and range constraints. Nested params like approval and expected effects are handled in the schema descriptions, so the description needn't repeat them; a note on permissions would make it fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the bid_modifier interpretation (0.1 = -90%, 1.0 = neutral, 10.0 = +900%) and the 0.0 rejection rule, which is behavioral detail beyond the schema's min/max.

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 (update), resource (campaign_criterion), and field (bid_modifier), scoped to a single criterion. It also names the sibling it is not (google_ads_device_targeting_set) for the 0.0 case, letting an agent disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes 0.0 device toggling to google_ads_device_targeting_set and states this tool rejects 0.0, with an explicit valid range. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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