List SplitLaunch projects available to the authenticated account, including each public pixel ID. Results are paginated and ordered by creation time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Default: 1. | |
| perPage | No | Default: 25. Maximum: 100. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as pagination and ordering by creation time, enhancing transparency without 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or extraneous text.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters (pagination), and key output detail (public pixel IDs). It lacks explicit return shape, but for a list endpoint, the description is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (page, perPage). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; 'paginated' is implied by the parameter names. Baseline score applies.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('list'), the resource ('SplitLaunch projects'), and the scope ('available to the authenticated account'). It also mentions key details like including public pixel IDs and pagination, distinguishing it from siblings like projects_get or projects_create.
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?
The description provides clear context for use (listing projects, paginated, ordered by creation time) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action combination (e.g., domains_add, experiments_create, goals_deactivate, reports_experiment_chart). There is no overlap or ambiguity; even the three report tools serve clearly different purposes (totals, time-series, channel breakdown).
The vast majority of tools follow a resource_action snake_case pattern (domains_add, experiments_list). A couple deviate (billing_portal, usage_summary) but still place the resource first, making the pattern predictable and easy to parse.
With 23 tools covering projects, domains, experiments, goals, reports, billing, health, and usage, the count is well-scoped for a split-testing platform. Each tool addresses a specific need without ballooning into excessive granularity.
The tool surface provides CRUD-like operations for core entities (projects, experiments, goals, domains) and essential report types. Minor gaps exist (no goal update tool, no experiment delete—only archive) but these are reasonable trade-offs for the domain.
