get_policyHosted privacy and data-use policy HTML for a pixel.
A pixel with consent turned off has no policy yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pixel_id | Yes | pixel_id whose hosted notice to read. Example: px_7a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pixel_id | Yes | ||
| policy_html | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / pixel_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Exact pixel_id returned by create_pixel or list_pixels; never an account ID"New value: +"pixel_id whose hosted notice to read. Example: px_7a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / pixel_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Exact pixel_id returned by create_pixel or list_pixels; never an account ID"Input schema / properties / pixel_id / maxLengthAdded value: +80Input schema / properties / pixel_id / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / pixel_id / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]+$"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "pixel_id": {
+ "title": "Pixel Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "policy_html": {
+ "title": "Policy Html",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "pixel_id",
+ "policy_html"
+ ],
+ "title": "Policy",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the consent-off edge case where no policy exists yet, which is genuinely useful behavioral context for interpreting results.
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 short fragments with no padding; the core output description is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately. The phrasing is slightly terse/awkward but nothing is wasted.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly spends its words on the one thing the schema can't convey: the consent-off case where no policy exists. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a pattern and an example value, so the schema fully documents pixel_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names the specific resource (hosted privacy/data-use policy) and its scope (for a pixel), and states the return form (HTML). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_pixel or configure_consent, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.
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?
Usage is implied: read the hosted notice for a given pixel. The description adds one useful precondition ('A pixel with consent turned off has no policy yet'), which warns the agent about an empty/unavailable result. It offers no routing guidance against alternatives, so it stays at minimum-viable.
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.