google-ads-agent

suggest_geo_targets

Read-only

Convert location names into numeric geo target IDs for campaign specs, returning canonical names and target types.

Instructions

Resolve location names to the numeric geo target IDs that campaign specs need. Pass names like ['Spain', 'Madrid', 'United States']. Returns each match with its ID, canonical name, and target type.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "location_names": "<location_names>"
    },
    "name": "suggest_geo_targets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`locale`	No	en
`country_code`	No
`location_names`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the annotations already establish safety and openness. The description adds that the tool returns matches with ID, canonical name, and target type, but it does not disclose behavior for no matches, ambiguous names, or how locale/country_code affect resolution.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, immediately show a usage example, and summarize the return fields. No words are wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a read-only lookup tool and mentions the key return fields, and an output schema exists to fill in detailed structure. However, the optional locale and country_code parameters are left unexplained, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to set them.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain location_names with a concrete example and clarifies the output. However, it does not describe the locale or country_code parameters, which remain opaque given the empty schema descriptions.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('location names to numeric geo target IDs') and explains why the output is needed ('that campaign specs need'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like suggest_keywords and geo_performance.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool when you need to convert human-readable location names into numeric geo target IDs for campaign specifications. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is distinct enough to guide selection.

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