Google Ads MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get overall account performance summary', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or whether it aggregates data across campaigns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description 'Get overall account performance summary' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Get high-level account metrics') to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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

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

Given the complexity of performance metrics and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary includes (e.g., key performance indicators, time-series data), how results are formatted, or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns detailed data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing details on 'days' (number of days to look back, default 30). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, such as clarifying the time range's impact on the summary. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get overall account performance summary' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('account performance summary'), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes 'performance summary' (e.g., metrics like clicks, conversions, revenue). It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_campaign_details' or 'get_top_performers', which might also provide performance-related data, leaving ambiguity in scope.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_campaigns', 'get_campaign_details', and 'get_top_performers' that might offer overlapping or more specific performance insights, there's no indication of context (e.g., use this for high-level overviews, use others for campaign-specific details). This lack of differentiation hinders effective tool selection.

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