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: pixels]
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?
The annotations already include readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description confirms a read operation and adds 'bulk support' behavior, but doesn't disclose exact return behavior or required authentication. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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 relatively short and front-loaded, but it contains extraneous action lines (list, accounts, pages, users) that are not relevant to a pixels-specific tool with flattening. The bulk note is useful, but too much of the text could confuse or mislead.
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 lacks an output schema and must infer behavior. The present description establishes read-only pixel listing and bulk support, but it does not explain call shape, return format, or prerequisites such as auth_account. This is enough for a narrow list tool but leaves important gaps.
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 should compensate. It only explains that business_ids are used for bulk execution; it does not explain business_id's role, auth_account, or the relationship between the singular and plural business identifiers.
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 explicitly explains that the tool reads Facebook Business Manager data and includes 'pixels — pixels owned by a BM' with '[Flattened action: pixels]', so the targeted resource is clear. It is slightly diluted by listing other unrelated actions (list, accounts, pages, users), but the flattened action note pins the purpose.
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 context is mostly implied: the tool name plus 'pixels' action signal when to choose it. The only explicit usage guidance is 'Bulk support: accepts business_ids for batched execution,' so there is no clear when/neither-or alternative guidance regard to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.