get_google_business_locationsRetrieve Google Business Profile locations available for posting, so you can select the right business account before publishing content.
Google Business Profile locations the profile can post to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds one useful behavioral detail: only postable locations are returned. It does not describe behavior when profile is omitted or responses are empty, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.
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 simple one-parameter tool, available output schema, and strong annotations, the description is reasonably sufficient. However, the parameter semantics and usage guidance are thin enough that an agent might not know how to populate 'profile' or when to prefer this tool over sibling list tools.
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 the single 'profile' parameter. It weakly clarifies the parameter by referring to 'the profile can post to,' but it does not explain how it should be specified, whether it is required, or what values it accepts.
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 identifies the resource (Google Business Profile locations) and scopes it to 'the profile can post to,' which makes it distinct from sibling get_google_business_reviews. Although the description is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, the title supplies the action 'List.'
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion such as 'for reviews, use get_google_business_reviews.' The phrase 'can post to' implies use in a posting workflow, but the agent is left to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.