Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_negative_keywords_remove

Removes a single campaign-level negative keyword, letting you lift an exclusion that blocks wanted traffic. Returns the criterion_id; the change is destructive and not automatically reversible.

Instructions

Removes a single campaign-level negative keyword. Returns the removed criterion_id. Destructive — the exclusion is lifted immediately on the next serving cycle, which can increase unwanted traffic. Not automatically reversible — record before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append if you may need to roll back. For ad group-level negatives there is currently no explicit remove tool — use the Google Ads UI or raise an issue if needed.

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 the negative belongs to.
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.
criterion_idYesNegative-keyword criterion ID as returned by google_ads_negative_keywords_list.

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
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: it flags the operation as destructive, explains the timing (exclusion lifts on the next serving cycle), states the consequence (increased unwanted traffic), declares it is not automatically reversible, and points to the logging tool for rollback. It also declares the return value (removed criterion_id).

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return value, then the risk disclosure, then the rollback path, then the ad-group caveat. No sentence is redundant.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the danger, reversibility, return value, and sibling gap well. It does not mention permission/scope requirements or what happens if the criterion_id does not exist, which would be useful for a delete.

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 every parameter (including reason, approval, expected, decision_id, customer_id) is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format meaning to the parameters beyond referencing criterion_id as the returned identifier.

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 with scope: 'Removes a single campaign-level negative keyword.' The campaign-level qualifier plus the explicit note that ad-group-level negatives have no equivalent tool distinguishes it from google_ads_negative_keywords_add_to_ad_group and google_ads_keywords_remove.

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?

Gives when-to-use (lifting a campaign-level exclusion), when-not (ad-group-level negatives have no remove tool — use the UI or raise an issue), and names the companion action (mureo_state_action_log_append) for capturing before-state. Alternatives and exclusions are explicit rather than inferred.

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