Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_negative_placements_add

Exclude websites, mobile apps, or app categories from Google Ads delivery in a single batch at campaign or ad group level to block unwanted placements.

Instructions

Excludes websites, mobile apps and/or mobile app categories from delivery, in one batch, at campaign or ad group level. Returns level, the scope id, count, and per entry the created criterion_id, resource_name, type and value. Mutating and delivery-affecting — a large exclusion batch can take a Display campaign to zero impressions. Recorded in STATE.json's action_log with an observation window, and reversible as one unit via rollback_apply, which removes exactly the criteria this call created. Exclude search terms with google_ads_negative_keywords_add instead.

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.
placementsYesExclusions to add. Types can be mixed in one call; the whole batch becomes a single reversible action_log entry.
ad_group_idNoAd group ID for an ad group-level exclusion. Supply exactly one of campaign_id or ad_group_id. Ad group-level exclusions do not cascade to sibling ad groups.
campaign_idNoCampaign ID for a campaign-level exclusion. Supply exactly one of campaign_id or ad_group_id — the two are separate criteria and campaign-level exclusions apply to every ad group under the campaign.
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. Addedv0.10.44

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is mutating and delivery-affecting, warns about the zero-impressions risk, explains the action_log recording with observation window, and describes the exact rollback semantics (removes exactly the criteria this call created). This is exemplary transparency 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it returns, the risk warning, the journaling behavior, the rollback semantics, and the sibling routing. The most important operational facts (mutating, delivery-affecting, reversible) are front-loaded.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: return values, risk profile, journaling, rollback, and the sibling alternative. The schema covers the parameter semantics thoroughly. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the return payload (level, scope id, count, per-entry criterion_id, resource_name, type, value) and the batch-level reversibility. The schema already documents the placement types and value formats well, so the description doesn't need to repeat those details.

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 description opens with a specific verb ('Excludes') and resource ('websites, mobile apps and/or mobile app categories'), and states the batch and campaign/ad group level scope. It also names the sibling alternative (google_ads_negative_keywords_add) for search terms, which distinguishes it from the closely related negative keywords tool.

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?

The description explicitly says to use google_ads_negative_keywords_add for search terms instead, and the schema clarifies the campaign_id vs ad_group_id exclusivity. The delivery-affecting warning ('can take a Display campaign to zero impressions') gives clear context for when to be cautious. The rollback_apply reference also tells the agent this is reversible as one unit.

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