Growomat

Set geo targeting

set_geo_targeting

Set a campaign's WHOLE geo-targeting set in one call — named areas and radius circles in a single include/exclude list, plus the campaign-level presence-vs-interest choice — the easy front door over update_campaign's geoTargets. Place names in include/exclude are resolved server-side (countries → geo registry → Google suggest); radius entries take lat/lng or an around place name (geocoded). Radius rows can only be INCLUDED (neither platform supports negative proximity — carve out places with an excluded area instead), and a set where every row is negative is rejected (ONLY_EXCLUSIONS). An empty set is legal: no geo criteria = ads can serve anywhere. locationIntent defaults to PRESENCE (people actually in the locations) — deliberately NOT the platforms' wider search-interest default. Use dry_run:true to get the resolved rows + the plain-language effective-targeting sentence (exactly what the UI shows) WITHOUT mutating the campaign. Scoped to the active Space.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`radii`	No	Radius circles: { radius, unit?: 'km'\|'mi', around?: place name (geocoded), lat?, lng?, name? }. "5km around Alexanderplatz" = { radius: 5, around: "Alexanderplatz" }. Radius is clamped to 1-500 at push.
`dry_run`	No	If true, return the resolved rows + effective-targeting sentence WITHOUT writing. Use to verify resolution before committing.
`exclude`	No	Areas to carve out of the included set — same shapes as include. "Germany except Bavaria" = include: ["Germany"], exclude: ["Bavaria"].
`include`	No	Areas to include: place names ("Germany", "Berlin") or { name, type?, countryCode? } objects. Resolved server-side.
`space_id`	No	Override the active Space for this one call.
`geoTargets`	No	Structured rows (see update_campaign.geoTargets). Alternative to include/exclude/radii — provide one form or the other.
`campaign_id`	Yes	Campaign id (as returned by list_campaigns).
`locationIntent`	No	Who counts as being in the targeted places. PRESENCE (the default) = people in — or regularly in — them. PRESENCE_OR_INTEREST = also people elsewhere who merely search about them (wider, much less qualified). Maps to Google geoTargetTypeSetting and Microsoft IntentOption.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotation (readOnlyHint: false), the description discloses substantial behavioral traits: server-side resolution chain (countries → geo registry → Google suggest), radius clamping to 1-500, the restriction that radius rows can only be included, the ONLY_EXCLUSIONS rejection, the empty-set legal behavior, the locationIntent default of PRESENCE deliberately differing from platform defaults, and the dry_run mutation-free behavior. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: defining the scope, explaining resolution, listing constraints, clarifying defaults, and introducing dry_run. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then logically branches into behavioral details without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (8 parameters, nested shapes for radii/geoTargets), the description covers all critical context: accepted input forms, server-side resolution, per-platform constraints, default values, mutation semantics, and the dry_run verification path. It leaves no obvious gap for an AI agent to misuse the tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds substantial semantic value beyond field names: it explains the relation between include/exclude/radii, the 'around' place name geocoding, the '5km around Alexanderplatz' example, the clamp range, the dry_run return payload, and the meaning of locationIntent values. This goes well above the baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set a campaign's WHOLE geo-targeting set in one call'. It clearly enumerates what the tool does (named areas, radius circles, include/exclude list, presence-vs-interest choice) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'update_campaign's geoTargets' as the 'easy front door'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description positions the tool as the preferred alternative to update_campaign's geoTargets, gives concrete examples ('Germany except Bavaria'), explains when to use exclude rather than negative radii, notes the ONLY_EXCLUSIONS rejection, and states that an empty set is legal. It also explains when to use dry_run:true, providing clear usage guidance.

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

All Growomat tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (get_ad, update_ad, delete_ad), so entity-level tools are easy to distinguish. The main ambiguity is among reporting/status tools like get_conversion_status, get_conversion_health, get_conversion_report, and account_summary vs. get_performance_stats, which could tempt misselection without reading descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Naming is highly consistent: nearly every resource has create_/get_/update_/delete_/list_ variants, with predictable special verbs like set_, trigger_, preview_, and upload_. Minor exceptions like account_summary or get_angle_readout still follow the same readable verb-driven style.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even one covering ad management. Most entities have full CRUD plus many custom readouts and report variants, which creates context bloat and makes tool selection unnecessarily expensive for the agent.

Completeness4/5

The platform covers the full campaign lifecycle: campaigns, ad groups, ads, keywords, assets, business/creative planes, conversion actions, sync, budget, and targeting are all represented. Minor gaps exist—conversion sources have create/list but no get/update/delete, and there is no explicit way to update or remove a conversion source—but these can be worked around.

Resources

Need Help?