microsoft-ads-mcp

get_location_intent

Read-only

Check a campaign's location-intent setting to see if it targets people physically present or those searching for or viewing pages about the locations.

Instructions

Read a campaign's location-intent setting (presence vs. broader reach).

Returns the single LocationIntent criterion's intent_option: PeopleIn (only people physically in the targeted locations) or PeopleInOrSearchingForOrViewingPages (people in, searching for, or viewing pages about them; Microsoft's default). Legacy campaigns may still report the deprecated PeopleSearchingForOrViewingPages.

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_location_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaign_id`	Yes	The campaign id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses return values including possible enum options and mentions legacy behavior (deprecated value). This adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential return detail and note on legacy. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, read-only), with an output schema presumably detailing the return, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% with campaign_id described. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads a campaign's location-intent setting, specifies the returned values (intent_option with possible options), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool set_location_intent which writes the same setting.

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 implicitly informs when to use the tool (to check location-intent setting) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_location_targets, which returns broader location targeting details. However, the context shows siblings include that tool, and the description's clarity on what this tool returns helps differentiate.

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

Deploy Server