Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_sitelinks_remove

Remove a sitelink from a Google Ads campaign by unlinking its asset, stopping it from serving. Returns the removed association's resource name for confirmation.

Instructions

Detach a sitelink asset from a Google Ads campaign by removing the CampaignAsset link. Returns {resource_name} of the removed campaign-asset association. Destructive — unlinks the asset from the campaign so it stops serving, but does not delete the underlying Asset row. Re-linking requires google_ads_sitelinks_create with the same text/URL. To list current sitelinks use google_ads_sitelinks_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_sitelinks_list rows where level=='campaign'.
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and handles it well. It explicitly states the operation is destructive, clarifies that it unlinks the asset so it stops serving, and notes the underlying Asset row is not deleted. It also discloses the return value and the re-link path, giving a complete behavioral picture.

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 with no filler: action and return value first, then the destructive caveat, then the re-link alternative, then the listing alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the most operationally critical information is 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?

The description covers what the tool does, its return value, its destructive effects, its non-deletion boundary, and how to reverse or inspect via sibling tools. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this is a complete enough picture for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and set expectations.

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 has detailed, contextual schema descriptions (e.g., asset_id provenance from list rows, customer_id fallback behavior). The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the re-link context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Detach'), a precise resource ('a sitelink asset from a Google Ads campaign'), and the mechanism ('removing the CampaignAsset link'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like google_ads_sitelinks_create and google_ads_sitelinks_list, and from other remove tools such as google_ads_callouts_remove.

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 provides clear routing guidance: re-linking requires google_ads_sitelinks_create, and listing current sitelinks uses google_ads_sitelinks_list. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or contrast it with other removal options, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select correctly.

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