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: list]
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 and idempotentHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds that it performs a flattened action 'list' (so no mutations) and supports batched execution via business_ids, which is useful context. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but annotations cover the safety profile.
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 description is compact, uses bullet points for actions, and includes a note about bulk support. It front-loads the purpose and provides a quick reference. No redundant sentences.
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?
Given the tool has a multi-action nature (list, accounts, pages, users, pixels) and only 3 parameters, the description adequately covers the main actions. But it lacks details on return format or parameter specifics, and with no output schema, a bit more clarity on what each action returns would improve completeness.
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 carries the burden. It mentions business_ids for bulk support, but does not explain the purpose of business_id or auth_account. However, given the description lists actions that require business_id implicitly, it adds some meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 it reads Facebook Business Manager data and enumerates specific actions (list, accounts, pages, users, pixels) with a flattened action 'list'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_ads_business_accounts and meta_ads_business_pages by covering multiple resource types, and notes bulk support.
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?
It implies when to use this tool (for reading business manager data) and lists sub-actions, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives for specific resource types (e.g., meta_ads_business_accounts). The bulk support hint provides some context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.