Skip to main content
Glama
Google Ads MCP Server

Google Ads MCP Server

get_ad_details

Read-only

Retrieve an ad's headlines, descriptions, URLs, and assets by supplying a Google Ads customer ID, ad group ID, and ad ID.

Instructions

Get full details of an ad (headlines, descriptions, URLs, assets).

Args:
    customer_id: Google Ads customer ID.
    ad_group_id: Ad group ID containing the ad.
    ad_id: Ad ID.

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>",
      "ad_group_id": "<ad_group_id>",
      "ad_id": "<ad_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ad_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ad_idYes
ad_group_idYes
customer_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description's only behavioral contribution is that the response contains the full creative content. It says nothing about failure behavior for a bad ad_id, permission requirements, or whether removed ads are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence describing the result, followed by a compact argument list. No filler, though the Args block adds little given its near-verbatim restatement of parameter names.

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 three-ID read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right move, but the definition is thin on how the IDs are obtained and what happens on lookup failure. Adequate to call, incomplete for confident use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet the Args block mostly restates the parameter names. 'Ad group ID containing the ad' adds a little hierarchy context and 'Google Ads customer ID' hints at format, but there is no guidance on ID types, formatting, or derivation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of an ad') and enumerates the payload (headlines, descriptions, URLs, assets), which tells an agent what the call returns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_asset_group_details or get_ad_group, but the resource is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite that the ad ID be obtained from a listing tool, and no exclusions. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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