Google Ads MCP Server

list_asset_groups

Read-only

Retrieve asset groups in a Performance Max campaign using a Google Ads customer ID and campaign ID to inspect campaign structure.

Instructions

List asset groups in a Performance Max campaign.

Args:
    customer_id: Google Ads customer ID.
    campaign_id: PMax campaign 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>",
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_asset_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaign_id`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 nothing about pagination, result size, ordering, or what an empty result means — the exact behavior an agent needs for a remote read of a potentially large collection.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. However, the Args block mostly echoes the schema property names and adds little, so the length is small but not maximally earned.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what the listing returns and how results are shaped or paged, and it is silent on both. For a two-parameter, undocumented-schema tool it leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether one call suffices.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it only restates each parameter name with a terse label ('Google Ads customer ID', 'PMax campaign ID'). It gives no format hints (e.g. hyphenated customer ID, numeric vs. prefixed campaign ID) despite the customer_id type being a free-form string.

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 ('List asset groups') and scopes it to a Performance Max campaign, so the agent knows exactly what will be returned at a coarse level. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_ad_groups or get_asset_group_details, but the resource itself 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 guidance on when to call this versus get_asset_group_details (for a single group) or list_ad_groups, and no stated prerequisites beyond the two IDs. The agent must infer the selection logic from sibling names alone.

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

Deploy Server