Read a Meta advertising breakdown for selected ad accounts and completed dates. Does not modify advertising.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | ||
| since | Yes | ||
| until | Yes | ||
| brandId | Yes | ||
| dimension | Yes | ||
| accountIds | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| accounts | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| fetchedAt | Yes | ||
| connections | No | ||
| connectionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / properties / provider / enumPrevious value: -[
- "meta",
- "pinterest"
-]New value: +[
+ "meta",
+ "pinterest",
+ "google"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description asserts 'Read... Does not modify advertising,' while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, directly contradicting the read-only claim. An agent cannot tell from these two conflicting sources whether the call is safe; this is a genuine annotation contradiction.
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?
Two tight sentences with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence is spent on a claim that conflicts with the annotations.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a 5-required-parameter query tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves dimension, brandId, and fresh entirely undocumented. It is not complete enough for correct invocation.
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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only loosely gestures at accountIds and since/until via 'selected ad accounts and completed dates'. It says nothing about dimension (the enum that defines the breakdown), brandId, or fresh.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (Meta advertising breakdown) with scope (selected ad accounts, completed dates). The 'breakdown' framing distinguishes it conceptually from get_ad_performance/get_analytics, but it never names a sibling to route the agent 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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent reporting tools (get_ad_performance, get_ad_campaign, get_performance_report). The phrase 'for selected ad accounts and completed dates' hints at context but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.