find_locationsSearch Google Ads geo targets by place name to retrieve location IDs for countries, regions, and cities.
Search Google's geo targets by name to get location IDs for countries, regions, cities and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | Place names, e.g. ["Lagos", "Abuja"]. | |
| locale | No | en | |
| country_code | No | Limit to a country, e.g. "NG". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results come from Google's external geo target dataset, which is useful context. It does not say how ambiguous names are resolved (single best match vs. multiple results), nor mention any rate or batch limits.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and ending with the payoff. No filler, no redundancy with the title.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does state what is returned (location IDs). For a simple lookup tool with read-only annotations, this is nearly sufficient — only the shape of results for ambiguous or partially matching names is left unstated.
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 67% and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema for any parameter — notably it never explains what `locale` does or how `country_code` disambiguates same-named places. The `names` and `country_code` params are self-documented in the schema, so the gap is not severe, but the description misses an easy opportunity to clarify the third parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Search Google's geo targets by name") plus the concrete outcome ("get location IDs") and enumerates the target types covered. This is unmistakably distinct from the keyword-oriented sibling tools (generate_keyword_ideas, get_search_volume, forecast_keywords).
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 phrase "to get location IDs" implies the use case: call this when you need a geo target ID for targeting. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention that this is a prerequisite step before other geo-targeted calls, and no pointer to any alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.