Read Facebook Business Manager data. Actions: list — list Business Managers accounts — ad accounts owned by a BM pages — pages owned by a BM users — business users and system users pixels — pixels owned by a BM
[Flattened action: accounts]
Bulk support: accepts business_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_id | No | ||
| auth_account | No | ||
| business_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' matches those annotations. The description adds one useful behavior — accepting business_ids for batched execution — but does not explain how batched execution behaves, what auth requirements exist, or what data is returned beyond the listed resource names.
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?
The text is short and front-loaded with 'Read Facebook Business Manager data', but the multi-action list and the '[Flattened action: accounts]' note add ambiguity rather than clarity. Some of those action labels may not apply to this tool, so the structure is not fully aligned with the single-tool interface it describes.
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 tool has three optional-looking parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations. The description leaves out return shape, pagination or output structure, and the exact difference between a single business_id and a batch of business_ids. This is enough to hint at intent but not enough for a confident standalone 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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It only mentions business_ids for bulk support and does not explain business_id or auth_account, nor their relationship. A caller cannot confidently know what to provide without external knowledge.
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 identifies a read operation over Facebook Business Manager data and mentions 'accounts — ad accounts owned by a BM', which is relevant to the tool name. However, it then lists several other actions (list, pages, users, pixels) and only cryptically narrows via '[Flattened action: accounts]', making the actual purpose less crisp than it could be.
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 says 'Read' and mentions bulk support, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as meta_ads_business_list, meta_ads_business_pages, meta_ads_business_users, or meta_ads_business_pixels. Without exclusions or alternatives, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.