List enabled ads with type, status, campaign name and ad_group_ad.policy_summary (approval_status, review_status, policy_topic_entries) — answers "why is my ad not serving?" without opening the Google Ads UI.
Bulk support: accepts customer_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| customer_ids | 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints, including the specific policy_summary fields returned and the ability to execute against multiple customer_ids in bulk. No contradictions with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating what the tool does and what it returns. The second sentence adds a distinct bulk-execution capability. Every sentence adds value with no filler.
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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, returned fields, a motivating use case, and bulk behavior. The main gap is the unresolved semantics of account and customer_id, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for most selection and invocation scenarios.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains customer_ids as providing bulk execution; the purpose and relationship of 'account' and 'customer_id' are left unspecified. This is insufficient for fully guiding an agent on how to supply parameters.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List enabled ads' followed by the exact fields returned (type, status, campaign name, policy_summary details). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like google_ads_campaigns or google_ads_keywords by focusing on ads and their policy approval/review status.
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 a concrete use case: answering 'why is my ad not serving?' without opening the Google Ads UI. It also notes bulk support via customer_ids. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over related read/write ad 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.