list_pixelsPixels on this account. Each item has pixel_id, domain, and install_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pixels | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "Pixel": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "check_error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Check Error"
+ },
+ "checked_at": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Checked At"
+ },
+ "consent_enabled": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Consent Enabled"
+ },
+ "data_kind": {
+ "enum": [
+ "synthetic",
+ "resolved"
+ ],
+ "title": "Data Kind",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "domain": {
+ "title": "Domain",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "evaluation_mode": {
+ "title": "Evaluation Mode",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "install_status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "not_checked",
+ "installed",
+ "not_installed",
+ "unreachable"
+ ],
+ "title": "Install Status",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "pixel_id": {
+ "title": "Pixel Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "snippet": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Snippet"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "pixel_id",
+ "domain",
+ "install_status",
+ "evaluation_mode",
+ "data_kind"
+ ],
+ "title": "Pixel",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "pixels": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/Pixel"
+ },
+ "title": "Pixels",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "pixels"
+ ],
+ "title": "PixelList",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the full behavioral profile of this simple read. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no pagination, caching, or auth notes), so it contributes almost nothing on this dimension.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement comes first. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool, though the second sentence is somewhat fragmentary.
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, return values need no explanation in prose, and there are no parameters to document. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the definition is essentially complete for a trivial read, missing only sibling routing guidance.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case. The description's mention of output fields does not function as parameter documentation, and none is needed.
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 states the resource and scope precisely: 'Pixels on this account', which together with the name makes the collection-listing purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_pixel (single pixel) or create_pixel, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this instead of get_pixel, create_pixel, or check_install, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the collection-level read.
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.