Find countries, cities, or regions for ad targeting by querying location names and filtering by type, with configurable result limits.
Search for geographic locations for targeting (countries, cities, regions, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results. Default: 25 | |
| query | Yes | Location name to search for | |
| locationTypes | No | Filter by location type (e.g. ["country", "city", "region"]) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches and for what purpose; it does not describe the return shape, matching behavior, result limits, or any other operational characteristics.
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 a single clear sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples add useful context without bloating the text.
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?
This is a simple tool with well-documented parameters, so an agent can call it with the required query. However, with no output schema and no behavioral details in the description, the agent is left without expectations about what results look like or how matching works.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains query, limit, and locationTypes. The description adds only illustrative examples of location types and does not provide meaningful parameter detail beyond what the schema gives.
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 ('Search') and resource ('geographic locations') with concrete examples ('countries, cities, regions'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is implicitly distinguished from sibling interest/behavior/demographic search tools, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 'for targeting' gives useful context about when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like searchInterests, searchBehaviors, or searchDemographics, nor does it state exclusions or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.