geo_lookupSearch cities, regions, and countries to retrieve location IDs for campaign location targeting in ChatGPT Ads accounts.
Search locations (cities, regions, countries) to get ids for campaign location targeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the output is ids consumed by campaign targeting, but says nothing about result relevance/ranking, partial matching, or how the limit interacts with a broad query — a notable gap for an open-world search.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the searchable entity types and the payoff (ids) come first.
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?
It covers the input intent and the kind of output (ids), which is reasonable for a small two-parameter tool with no output schema. It falls short on the two parameters and on result-shaping behavior, leaving an agent unable to call it optimally.
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% across both parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. 'query' (minLength 1) is never characterized — free-text city name? country code? — and 'limit' (1-50) is not mentioned at all, so an agent cannot infer the cap on results or default behavior.
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 (search) and resource (locations) and enumerates the scope: cities, regions, countries. It also names the downstream purpose (ids for campaign location targeting). It does not need to differentiate from a sibling, since none of the listed siblings does geo lookup, but it also does no explicit routing work.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'to get ids for campaign location targeting', which tells the agent why it would call this. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note that this is a prerequisite step before setting campaign targeting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.