Google Ads MCP Server

list_campaigns

Read-only

Retrieve and filter campaigns in a Google Ads account by status and result limit to review account performance.

Instructions

List campaigns in a Google Ads account.

Args:
    customer_id: Google Ads customer ID.
    status_filter: Optional filter -- 'ENABLED', 'PAUSED', or 'REMOVED'.
    limit: Max campaigns to return (default 100).

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": "list_campaigns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`customer_id`	Yes
`status_filter`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 only the truncation behavior implied by 'Max campaigns to return (default 100)' — it says nothing about ordering, what happens to REMOVED campaigns by default, or pagination beyond the limit.

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 summary sentence followed by a tight Args block; every line maps to a real parameter and the purpose is front-loaded. The docstring formatting is slightly verbose for prose but not wasteful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, all parameters, the filter's accepted values, and the default result cap. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% and the status_filter has no enum in the schema, so the description carries the burden — and it does, enumerating the three accepted status values and stating the limit's default and meaning. customer_id is described only as 'Google Ads customer ID', which adds little beyond the field name.

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 first line gives a specific verb and resource ('List campaigns in a Google Ads account'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_campaign or list_ad_groups. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the intent 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 get_campaign (single campaign), get_campaign_performance, or execute_gaql. Usage is only implied by the presence of a status_filter and limit argument.

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

Deploy Server