Skip to main content
Glama
logly

mureo

by logly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

google_ads_location_targeting_update

Add or remove location criteria on a Google Ads campaign in one mutate operation, using location IDs or criterion IDs to adjust geo targeting.

Instructions

Add and/or remove location criteria on a Google Ads campaign in a single mutate. Returns [{resource_name}] — one entry per operation executed (adds first, then removes). Mutating — adds create new criteria, removes delete them by criterion_id. Reversible only by calling this tool again with the inverse operations. At least one of add_locations / remove_criterion_ids must be provided. Locations can be passed as bare numeric IDs or as full 'geoTargetConstants/' paths; bare IDs are auto-prefixed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoWhy this change is being made: one or two sentences naming the evidence and the expected effect. Stored in the journal and on the action_log entry this call produces, for the operator and the next session.
approvalNoExternal approval this change carries out (recorded and shown, never verified)
expectedNoExpected effects [{metric, direction, target?, horizon_days?, primary?}], exactly one primary:true when several; metric cpa/cpc/cpl/cpm/conversions/cvr/ctr/roas/cost/spend/clicks/impressions; direction up/down/hold.
campaign_idYesCampaign ID as a numeric string without dashes (e.g. '23743184133'). Obtain via google_ads_campaigns_list.
customer_idNoGoogle Ads customer ID as a 10-digit string without dashes (e.g. '1234567890'). Optional — falls back to GOOGLE_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID / GOOGLE_ADS_LOGIN_CUSTOMER_ID from the configured credentials when omitted.
decision_idNoA proposed decision this change carries out.
add_locationsNoGeo target constants to add, either as numeric IDs (e.g. '2392' for Japan, '2840' for US) or as full resource paths ('geoTargetConstants/2392'). Bare IDs are auto-prefixed.
remove_criterion_idsNoExisting criterion_ids to remove (numeric strings, e.g. '30002'). Obtain via google_ads_location_targeting_list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.33.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected / description
      Previous value: -"Expected effects [{metric, direction, target?, horizon_days?}]; metric cpa/cpc/cpl/cpm/conversions/cvr/ctr/roas/cost/spend/clicks/impressions; direction up/down/hold."New value: +"Expected effects [{metric, direction, target?, horizon_days?, primary?}], exactly one primary:true when several; metric cpa/cpc/cpl/cpm/conversions/cvr/ctr/roas/cost/spend/clicks/impressions; direction up/down/hold."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.28.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "External approval this change carries out (recorded and shown, never verified)",
+  "properties": {
+    "approved_at": {
+      "maxLength": 64,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "approved_by": {
+      "maxLength": 80,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reference": {
+      "maxLength": 128,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reference",
+    "approved_by",
+    "approved_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.26.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / decision_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A proposed decision this change carries out.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Expected effects [{metric, direction, target?, horizon_days?}]; metric cpa/cpc/cpl/cpm/conversions/cvr/ctr/roas/cost/spend/clicks/impressions; direction up/down/hold.",
+  "maxItems": 12,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv0.20.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Why this change is being made: one or two sentences naming the evidence and the expected effect. Stored in the journal and on the action_log entry this call produces, for the operator and the next session.",
+  "maxLength": 500,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.37
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "add_locations"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "remove_criterion_ids"
+    ]
+  }
+]
  6. Addedv0.10.11
  7. Removedv0.10.9
  8. Addedv0.9.12
  9. Removedv0.9.6
  10. Addedv0.9.2
  11. Removedv0.9.1
  12. Addedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation mutating, spells out what each half does (adds create new criteria, removes delete by criterion_id), discloses the return shape and result ordering, and warns that reversibility requires an inverse call. It does not say whether the single mutate is atomic — i.e., what happens if one of several operations fails — which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then return shape, then mutation semantics, then constraints. No filler and nothing repeated for its own sake.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it changes, what it returns, and how to undo it. Atomicity/partial-failure behavior and the permission profile are the notable omissions.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so add_locations, remove_criterion_ids and campaign_id are already fully documented including the auto-prefix behavior. The description mostly restates those schema facts (bare IDs auto-prefixed, mutual requirement); its only genuinely new detail is the execution order of adds before removes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb pair (add and/or remove) and a specific resource (location criteria on a Google Ads campaign), plus the batching scope (single mutate). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the read-side google_ads_location_targeting_list and from other campaign mutators.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a hard precondition ("At least one of add_locations / remove_criterion_ids must be provided") and an operational constraint ("Reversible only by calling this tool again with the inverse operations"). It does not name a sibling tool to use instead when the goal is reading criteria, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools