Google Ads MCP Server

get_field_metadata

Read-only

Retrieve selectable, filterable, and sortable fields for a GAQL resource type to help construct accurate queries.

Instructions

Get selectable, filterable, and sortable fields for a GAQL resource.

Args:
    resource_type: Resource name (e.g., 'campaign', 'ad_group', 'ad_group_ad').
    customer_id: Customer ID (uses default if not provided).

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": {
      "resource_type": "<resource_type>"
    },
    "name": "get_field_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customer_id`	No
`resource_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 adds the useful framing that results are categorized as selectable/filterable/sortable, but says nothing about the return shape (field list vs. grouped object) or why customer_id affects schema lookup.

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?

One purpose sentence up front, then a compact Args block that earns its place by compensating for the undocumented schema. No filler or repeated boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and it only says which categories of fields come back without describing their structure or how to consume them in a query. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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 burden and does so reasonably: resource_type is given three concrete example values, and customer_id's fallback-to-default behavior is explained. The customer_id format (numeric vs. 'customers/123' prefix) is left unspecified.

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: it retrieves the selectable, filterable, and sortable fields for a GAQL resource. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from query-execution siblings like execute_gaql, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

The use case (discovering valid GAQL field names before building a query) is strongly implied by 'for a GAQL resource', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when it is unnecessary, and no named alternative for comparison.

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

Deploy Server