Create an ad group inside a campaign. Default status ENABLED, type SEARCH_STANDARD. Optional cpc_bid as the ad-group-level default max CPC.
Bulk support: accepts campaign_ids, customer_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| cpc_bid | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| campaign_ids | No | ||
| customer_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / cpv_bidRemoved value: -{
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "SEARCH_STANDARD",
- "DISPLAY_STANDARD",
- "SHOPPING_PRODUCT_ADS",
- "VIDEO_BUMPER",
- "VIDEO_TRUE_VIEW_IN_STREAM",
- "VIDEO_TRUE_VIEW_IN_DISPLAY"
-]New value: +[
+ "SEARCH_STANDARD",
+ "DISPLAY_STANDARD",
+ "SHOPPING_PRODUCT_ADS"
+]Input schema / properties / cpv_bidAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "SEARCH_STANDARD",
- "DISPLAY_STANDARD",
- "SHOPPING_PRODUCT_ADS",
- "VIDEO_BUMPER",
- "VIDEO_TRUE_VIEW_IN_STREAM"
-]New value: +[
+ "SEARCH_STANDARD",
+ "DISPLAY_STANDARD",
+ "SHOPPING_PRODUCT_ADS",
+ "VIDEO_BUMPER",
+ "VIDEO_TRUE_VIEW_IN_STREAM",
+ "VIDEO_TRUE_VIEW_IN_DISPLAY"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotation flags by disclosing default status/type, the meaning of cpc_bid as ad-group-level default max CPC, and batch support for plural IDs. It does not describe success/return/error behavior, but this is less critical because there is no output schema.
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 three short sentences with no filler or tautology. The core action and key behavioral default are front-loaded, while the batch capability is in a separate, clearly marked sentence.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations describing caller context, an agent still lacks important context such as parent campaign requirements, account resolution, and return behavior. The defaults and bulk support make the description usable, but it is not complete enough to handle the tool confidently in all cases.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter-meaning weight, and it partially succeeds: it clarifies cpc_bid, the plural bulk parameters, and status/type defaults. However, the role of `account`, `customer_id`, and the relationship between singular and plural IDs remains unexplained.
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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Create an ad group inside a campaign,' and immediately adds defaults for status and type. No sibling tool provides the same creation function, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives to consider. The bulk-support note says what the tool can do, but does not help an agent decide between this and related update or listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most google_ads_* tools map to distinct resource+action pairs, but the five keyword tools (keywords_keywords, keywords_diagnostics, keywords_raw, keywords_search_terms, keywords_status) share essentially the same description and action list, differing only by a flattened action label. google_ads_account, google_ads_status, google_ads_list_accounts, and connect/toolkit_info also overlap in account/status purposes.
Domain tools mostly follow a google_ads_<resource>_<action> pattern, with plural nouns for list operations like google_ads_campaigns and google_ads_ads. This is muddied by redundant google_ads_keywords_keywords, metric-only names like google_ads_roas/google_ads_today, and six generic meta tools that break the prefix pattern.
35 tools is too many for a coherent Google Ads surface. Five keyword tools are one logical action router split into separate endpoints, and several platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are unrelated to the Google Ads domain, inflating the count.
The server covers major workflows: accounts, campaigns, budgets, ad groups, ads, keywords, negative keywords, sitelinks, performance, and change history. However, there is no way to list existing ad groups, no negative keyword removal, and no creative update beyond pause/enable/remove, which are notable gaps for this domain.