Google Ads MCP Server

get_account_info

Read-only

Retrieve Google Ads account details—name, currency, timezone—using a customer ID to verify account context before reporting or campaign work.

Instructions

Get details for a Google Ads account (name, currency, timezone, etc.).

Args:
    customer_id: Google Ads customer ID (e.g., '123-456-7890' or '1234567890').

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_account_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customer_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that account metadata such as name, currency, and timezone is returned, but it does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' block is slightly formal for a one-parameter tool, but it is not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only metadata lookup with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. Still, the vague 'etc.' leaves the returned fields open-ended, and there is no output schema to clarify exactly what 'details' includes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does provide useful format examples for customer_id ('123-456-7890' or '1234567890'). However, it does not explain whether either format is accepted universally or whether the ID must belong to an accessible account.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for a Google Ads account', and names example fields (name, currency, timezone). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_account_hierarchy or list_accessible_accounts, but the purpose is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer this is for retrieving account metadata when the customer ID is known. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server