Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_monitoring_cpa_goal

Evaluate a Google Ads campaign's last-7-days CPA against your target, flag critical overspend, and surface wasteful search terms for cost-increase investigation.

Instructions

Evaluate a Google Ads campaign's last-7-days CPA against a user-supplied target and integrate cost-increase analysis. Returns {campaign_id, target_cpa, current_cpa (float, or null when conversions==0 or the performance report could not be retrieved), cost_analysis (full google_ads_cost_increase_investigate payload), wasteful_terms (top 5 zero-CV cost terms from cost_analysis), deviation_pct, status ('healthy' when current<=target, 'warning' when <=target1.2 or when CV==0, 'critical' when >target1.2, 'unknown' when the performance report could not be retrieved), issues:[strings], summary, suggested_workflow?}. A part that could not be retrieved is null and named in issues, and nothing is derived from it. The CPA window is hardcoded to LAST_7_DAYS. Read-only; does not change bids. For account-wide rollup use google_ads_health_check_all; for daily CV-count vs target use google_ads_monitoring_cv_goal.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_cpaYesTarget cost per acquisition in account currency (e.g. 3000 = ¥3,000). Required — this tool does NOT fall back to bidding-strategy or actual CPA. 'warning' threshold is target_cpa * 1.2; above that is 'critical'.
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 changedv0.10.37
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Addedv0.9.12
  3. Removedv0.9.6
  4. Addedv0.9.2
  5. Removedv0.9.1
  6. Addedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
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 so well: read-only, does not change bids, hardcoded window, and explicit null-on-failure semantics ('a part that could not be retrieved is null and named in issues, and nothing is derived from it'). Status thresholds are spelled out.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded before the return-shape enumeration. The field-by-field listing is dense but earns its place for a rich structured return; slightly over-packed but no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully specifies the return shape, edge-case behavior (nulls, unknown status), status thresholds, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results correctly.

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 would be 3; the description adds value by tying target_cpa to the warning/critical threshold logic and by documenting the meaning of returned fields like current_cpa and deviation_pct. It does not restate parameter syntax, but the added status-derivation context elevates it above baseline.

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+resource+scope: evaluating a campaign's last-7-days CPA against a target, plus cost-increase integration. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings (health_check_all for account-wide, monitoring_cv_goal for daily CV-count), so an agent can route 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?

Names both alternatives and the conditions that select them (account-wide rollup, daily CV-count vs target), leaving nothing to inference. The hardcoded LAST_7_DAYS window is also stated, framing the scope of when this applies.

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