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 the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get top performing campaigns') and includes the key constraint ('by specified metric'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (ranking campaigns by metrics with three parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'top performing' means (e.g., highest values of the metric), how ties are handled, or what the return structure includes (e.g., campaign IDs, metric values). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (metric, limit, days), including an enum for 'metric' and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'metric' is used for ranking. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('top performing campaigns'), specifying the ranking criterion ('by specified metric'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_campaigns' (general listing) and 'get_performance_summary' (aggregate metrics) by focusing on ranking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_campaign_details' (individual campaign data) in the description text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_campaigns' (for unfiltered lists) or 'get_performance_summary' (for overall metrics), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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