Google Ads MCP Server

add_assets_to_group

Batch-link headlines, images, logos, videos, and other assets to an existing Google Ads asset group by specifying the customer ID, asset group ID, and asset field types.

Instructions

Add assets to an existing asset group (batch link operation).

Args:
    customer_id: Google Ads customer ID.
    asset_group_id: Asset group ID.
    assets: List of asset dicts, each with:
        - asset_resource_name (str): Full asset resource name.
        - field_type (str): Asset field type -- 'HEADLINE', 'LONG_HEADLINE',
          'DESCRIPTION', 'BUSINESS_NAME', 'MARKETING_IMAGE',
          'SQUARE_MARKETING_IMAGE', 'LOGO', 'YOUTUBE_VIDEO', 'CALL_TO_ACTION_SELECTION'.

Example:
    assets=[
        {"asset_resource_name": "customers/123/assets/456", "field_type": "HEADLINE"},
        {"asset_resource_name": "customers/123/assets/789", "field_type": "MARKETING_IMAGE"},
    ]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "asset_group_id": "<asset_group_id>",
      "assets": "<assets>"
    },
    "name": "add_assets_to_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assets`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes
`asset_group_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a link/batch operation on an existing group, which is useful context, but it says nothing about partial-failure behavior on a batch, error modes for invalid field_type values, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a scannable Args block and a short example; each section earns its place. Slightly long due to the field_type enumeration, but that enumeration replaces missing schema information rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description could say more about what the call returns or how partial batch failures surface, but for a three-parameter write tool with full param documentation and an example it is close to complete. Request-level behavior is the only material omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all param meaning — and it does, documenting all three parameters plus the nested dict keys (asset_resource_name, field_type) and the full closed list of nine valid field_type values that the schema does not expose. A concrete example is included. This is well beyond the schema.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Add assets to an existing asset group') and immediately qualifies the operation as a 'batch link operation', which distinguishes it from asset creation and from the sibling remove_asset_from_group. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'existing asset group' implies a precondition and 'batch link' implies assets must already exist, but neither is stated as an explicit requirement and no alternative tool is named. The when-to-use is inferable but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server