microsoft-ads-mcp

remove_location_targets

Remove location targets or exclusions from a Microsoft Advertising campaign by specifying criterion IDs. Streamlines campaign geo-targeting adjustments.

Instructions

Remove location targets/exclusions from a campaign by criterion id.

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>",
      "criterion_ids": "<criterion_ids>"
    },
    "name": "remove_location_targets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaign_id`	Yes	The campaign id.
`criterion_ids`	Yes	Campaign criterion ids (from get_location_targets).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`ids`	No
`message`	Yes
`partial_errors`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: false indicates a mutation, which the description confirms. However, the description adds no new behavioral traits beyond the schema, such as side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action and key input.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It identifies the essential input (criterion IDs) and action, though it could briefly note that IDs come from get_location_targets, which is already in the schema.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond referencing the criterion IDs, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'location targets/exclusions from a campaign', specifying the method 'by criterion id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_location_targets.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is used when removing location targets by criterion IDs, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios to avoid.

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

Deploy Server