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: pages]
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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destruction; the description reinforces this with 'Read'. It adds useful behavioral context: resources, actions, and bulk execution via business_ids. No contradiction exists, and it gives more than safety only.
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 and front-loaded: starts with 'Read Facebook Business Manager data', uses tight action lines, and ends with a brisk bulk-support note. The 'Flattened action: page' line is a bit cryptic but not inflated; overall should kept tight.
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?
Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations, and the description makes the resource scopes clear with action names. But with no output schema, the description does not clarify what the returned page data actually contains, nor does it resolve the Aabiguity between the full action list and the '[Flattened action]'. Compose for a read/list tool, still below fully self-suficient token.
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 schema descriptions cover 0%; description adds only 'Bulk support: service business_ids for batched execution.' That helps one parameter, but business_id and auth_account are semantically unexplained. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 introduces the tool as 'Read Facebook Business Manager data' and lists specific actions such as 'pages — pages owned by a BM', backed by '[Flattened action: pages]'. This gives a solid verb+object purpose. However, the multi-action list makes it slightly less sharp than if it focused solely on the pages action.
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 'Bulk support' for business_ids, hinting at batched use, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like meta_ads_business_accounts, meta_ads_business_users, or meta_ads_pages_list. No alternative guidance or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.