Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Ads MCP Server

Google Ads MCP Server

by nexoradev-stack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_asset_group_details

Read-only

Retrieve full details for a Google Ads asset group, including linked assets and signals, by customer ID and asset group ID.

Instructions

Get full details of an asset group including linked assets and signals.

Args:
    customer_id: Google Ads customer ID.
    asset_group_id: Asset group 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>",
      "asset_group_id": "<asset_group_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_asset_group_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customer_idYes
asset_group_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 elsewhere. The description adds that linked assets and signals are bundled into the response, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or how missing/inaccessible asset groups behave.

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?

One front-loaded sentence followed by a brief Args block; nothing is redundant. The Args section is nearly redundant with the schema but is compact enough not to hurt.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool needs little, and the description states what 'full details' covers at a high level. With no output schema, however, the agent gets no sense of the response's field structure or size, which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it identifies customer_id as a Google Ads customer ID and asset_group_id as an asset group ID. That is only a restatement of the names with domain context – no format or sourcing guidance beyond it.

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?

Specific verb+resource (get full details of an asset group) with the returned content hinted at (linked assets and signals). It is clearly a detail-fetch counterpart to list_asset_groups, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer that this is the read-detail tool versus list_asset_groups or get_asset_performance. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'full details'.

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