Pull splits
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | Yes | ||
| ad_ids | No | ||
| date_to | Yes | ||
| date_from | Yes | ||
| breakdowns | No | ||
| product_ids | No | ||
| product_refs | No | ||
| product_names | No | ||
| conversion_event | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / conversion_eventAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / ad_idsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 50,
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Pull splits,' which implies a read-like retrieval operation but discloses nothing about scope, filtering, side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond the annotation values. Since readOnlyHint is false, the read-only nature is not even guaranteed by 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?
While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Two words cannot meaningfully describe a 9-parameter tool and no structured information is front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with 9 parameters, 3 required fields, 0% schema coverage, and no descriptive guidance, the definition is far too incomplete. An agent cannot determine valid combinations, the meaning of 'splits,' or how this relates to the broader insights tool family.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it mentions none of them. The agent gets no help understanding required fields like level, date_from, date_to, or optional filters like ad_ids, breakdowns, product_ids, product_refs, product_names, or conversion_event.
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 'Pull splits' is a vague, near-tautological restatement of the tool name. It does not specify that these are product breakdowns for insights, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like insights_read_breakdowns or insights_pull_insights.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several closely related insights tools, but the description offers no context, exclusions, or criteria to select this one.
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.