Skip to main content
Glama

google_ads_device_targeting_set

Enable or disable Google Ads campaign delivery per device by setting bid modifiers to 1.0 for enabled devices and 0.0 for disabled ones.

Instructions

Toggle device delivery on a Google Ads campaign by setting bid_modifier=1.0 on enabled devices and 0.0 on disabled ones. Iterates all three devices individually so one failure does not abort the others. Returns {message, enabled_devices (sorted list), disabled_devices (sorted list), updated (list of resource_names that succeeded), errors (list of '(): ' strings, or null)}. Mutating — existing device criteria are UPDATE-ed, missing ones are CREATE-ed. Reversible only by calling this tool again with a different enabled_devices. enabled_devices must be non-empty (passing an empty array raises ValueError). For fine-grained non-zero bid modifiers use google_ads_bid_adjustments_update.

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.
enabled_devicesYesDevices that should continue serving (bid_modifier=1.0). Devices not in this list have bid_modifier set to 0.0 (delivery off). At least one device must be enabled.

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it declares the tool mutating, discloses UPDATE-vs-CREATE semantics for existing/missing criteria, documents per-device failure isolation, states reversibility is only via re-invocation, and specifies the ValueError on empty input. Return structure and error string format are also given.

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-loaded with the action and mechanism, then behavior, then return contract, then constraint, then the sibling pointer. No filler sentences; the return-shape sentence is justified because no output schema exists.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description supplies the return contract, partial-failure semantics, reversal path, and constraint — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates enabled_devices semantics (already in the schema) and says nothing about reason, approval, expected, decision_id, or customer_id, so it adds little beyond the structured fields for parameters.

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 and resource ('toggle device delivery on a Google Ads campaign') plus the exact mechanism (bid_modifier 1.0/0.0 on MOBILE/DESKTOP/TABLET). It is clearly separable from google_ads_device_targeting_get (read) and google_ads_bid_adjustments_update (non-zero modifiers).

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 the agent to google_ads_bid_adjustments_update for fine-grained non-zero modifiers, and states the hard precondition that enabled_devices must be non-empty. The when-to-use condition (binary on/off per device) is unambiguous.

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