Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_callouts_remove

Remove a callout from a Google Ads campaign by detaching the asset from the campaign. Stops the callout from serving, but does not delete the asset; re-add it later with the same text if needed.

Instructions

Detach a callout asset from a Google Ads campaign by removing the CampaignAsset link. Returns {resource_name} of the removed campaign-asset association. Destructive — the callout stops serving on the campaign but the Asset row itself is not deleted. Re-enabling requires google_ads_callouts_create with the same text. For the sibling list operation use google_ads_callouts_list.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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.
asset_idYesAsset ID as a numeric string (e.g. '123456789'). Obtain from the 'id' field of google_ads_callouts_list.
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.

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. Addedv0.10.11
  4. Removedv0.10.9
  5. Addedv0.9.12
  6. Removedv0.9.6
  7. Addedv0.9.2
  8. Removedv0.9.1
  9. 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 provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: it flags 'Destructive', scopes the effect precisely ('the callout stops serving on the campaign but the Asset row itself is not deleted'), states the return value ({resource_name}), and documents the re-enable path. This is exemplary honesty for a mutation tool.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the return value, the destructive scope with non-deletion nuance, the reversal path, and the sibling routing. The main verb is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 a destructive 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, return shape, blast radius, non-deletion of the underlying asset, and reversal path, while the schema covers parameter provenance comprehensively. Minor omissions such as error cases (e.g., asset not attached) and permission requirements keep it just shy of a 5.

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%, and each parameter already carries rich semantics: asset_id and campaign_id include provenance instructions ('Obtain from the 'id' field of google_ads_callouts_list'), and customer_id documents the env-var fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The opening phrase 'Detach a callout asset from a Google Ads campaign by removing the CampaignAsset link' names a specific verb, resource, and underlying mechanism. It distinguishes itself from the create and list siblings within its own text via the reversal and sibling-routing sentences, so an agent cannot confuse it with google_ads_callouts_create or google_ads_callouts_list.

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?

The description names the relevant alternatives explicitly: 'For the sibling list operation use google_ads_callouts_list' and 'Re-enabling requires google_ads_callouts_create with the same text.' It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement or prerequisites (e.g., campaign state checks), but the sibling routing is clear and actionable.

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