Pause, enable or remove ads. Each entry needs ad_group_id + ad_id because the ad resource is keyed by both (customers/X/adGroupAds/{ad_group_id}~{ad_id}).
Bulk support: accepts customer_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ads | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| customer_ids | No | ||
| partial_failure | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries some burden. It states the actions (pause, enable, remove) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., removal being permanent) or error handling. It adds the keying detail, which is useful, but could be more explicit about the consequences of 'REMOVED'.
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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core action and then adding essential usage details. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, the keying requirement, and bulk execution. It omits details about return values, partial failures, and account targeting options, but the description is sufficient for an experienced agent to use it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the structure of 'ads' (each needs ad_group_id and ad_id) and the bulk capability via customer_ids. However, it does not explain the difference between account, customer_id, and customer_ids, nor the purpose of partial_failure, leaving those parameters underspecified.
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 action ('Pause, enable or remove ads') and the resource ('ads'), which is distinct from sibling tools like google_ads_ad_group_update_status (which targets ad groups) and google_ads_campaign_update_status. It also specifies the required keying (ad_group_id + ad_id), adding precision.
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 usage context by explaining that each entry needs both ad_group_id and ad_id and mentions bulk support via customer_ids. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the resource-specific wording effectively differentiates it from sibling 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.