Read today's events; channel_pid required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| today | No | ||
| breakdown | No | ||
| event_name | Yes | ||
| channel_pid | Yes | ||
| product_ref | No | ||
| product_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defs / s6Added value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "can_report_stored_total": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "zero_proven": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "can_report_stored_total",
+ "zero_proven",
+ "reason"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / else / properties / read_evidenceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Proofs apply independently to returned metrics and scope as stored/observed. A new read_ref is a call identifier, never a source watermark. False or missing proof means unknown, not zero. Fingerprints correlate requests/results in audits; they are not authorization or pagination tokens.",
+ "properties": {
+ "artifact_returned": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "configuration": {
+ "properties": {
+ "account_inventory_enumerated": {
+ "const": false
+ },
+ "all_campaigns_paused_proven": {
+ "const": false
+ },
+ "requested_ids_complete": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "const": "requested_entity_ids_only"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "mmp": {
+ "properties": {
+ "can_report_scoped_totals": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "provider_cache_max_age_seconds": {
+ "const": 90
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "const": "linked_apps_queried_channels_and_windows"
+ },
+ "source_observed_at": {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "read_ref": {
+ "pattern": "^read_[0-9a-f]{32}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "request_fingerprint": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "result_fingerprint": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scopes": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "all_campaigns_paused_proven": {
+ "const": false
+ },
+ "funnel": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/s6"
+ },
+ "maxProperties": 32,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "index": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "inventory_anchor": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "inventory_coverage": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "inventory_source_observed_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "metrics": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/s6"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "metrics_source_observed_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "range_complete": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "const": "stored_query"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 10,
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "read_ref",
+ "request_fingerprint",
+ "result_fingerprint"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no rate limits, auth context, latency, or freshness caveats—so it earns only minimal credit for not contradicting the 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?
Two short clauses with no filler and the required-parameter note up front. It is concise, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, capping the score.
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?
A 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and two required inputs needs the description to define event_name semantics, breakdown usage, and product_ref/product_name relationships. None of that is present, and an agent cannot infer the distinctions from the near-identical sibling tools either.
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% across 6 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them: today, breakdown, event_name, product_ref, and product_name are left entirely undefined. The sole parameter mentioned (channel_pid) is already listed as required in the schema, so no meaning is added.
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?
"Read today's events" restates the tool name (mmp_insights_get_product_event_today) almost verbatim rather than defining what an "event" is or what distinguishes it from the sibling mmp_insights_get_product_today. No scope, subject, or metric is specified beyond the temporal qualifier already in the name.
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 never states when to use this tool versus mmp_insights_get_product_today, mmp_insights_query_product_event_summary, or the other insights_* siblings. Only the "channel_pid required" prerequisite is given, which is already enforced by the schema's required array.
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.