Google Ads MCP Server

remove_campaign

DestructiveIdempotent

Soft-delete a Google Ads campaign by setting it to REMOVED status; review the preview, then confirm to proceed.

Instructions

Soft-delete (remove) a campaign.

This is a destructive operation. The campaign will be set to REMOVED status.
Safety: returns a preview first; call again with confirm=True to remove.

Args:
    customer_id: Google Ads customer ID.
    campaign_id: Campaign ID to remove.
    confirm_removal: Older name for confirm; either one set to True proceeds.
    confirm: Must be True to proceed (after reviewing the preview).

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": "remove_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`campaign_id`	Yes
`customer_id`	Yes
`confirm_removal`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains exactly what happens: the campaign is soft-deleted and set to REMOVED status. It also discloses the important safety behavior that the first call returns a preview and that confirmation is required before removal.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the operation, destructiveness, resulting status, and safety workflow, followed by concise parameter documentation. There is little wasted wording for a destructive multi-parameter tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

It covers the operation, destructive behavior, confirmation workflow, and all parameters, which is strong for a four-parameter tool with no output schema. It could be more complete by describing what the preview response contains, but the essential call behavior is present.

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

Parameters5/5

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 and does so by documenting all four parameters. It is especially useful in explaining that confirm_removal is an older alias for confirm and that either one set to True proceeds.

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 states a specific verb and resource: remove a campaign, clarified as a soft-delete that sets status to REMOVED. It is clear about the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from status-changing siblings such as set_campaign_status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear two-step usage workflow: call once to get a preview, then call again with confirm=True to proceed. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, but the confirm workflow is well explained.

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

Deploy Server