Read event totals; channel_pid required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| date_to | Yes | ||
| breakdown | No | ||
| date_from | Yes | ||
| event_name | Yes | ||
| channel_pid | Yes | ||
| product_ref | No | ||
| product_name | No | ||
| connection_context | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / categoryAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / expectedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / then / properties / failure_kindAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / responsibility_hintAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / routeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / user_visibleAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / connection_contextAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}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 fully covered by structured data. The description's one added claim (channel_pid required) merely restates the schema's required array and reveals nothing new about pagination, cursor behavior, or breakdown semantics.
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 single clause is front-loaded with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. But the economy comes from omission rather than discipline — it is under-specified for a 9-parameter query tool, so conciseness here reflects a lack of content rather than efficient editing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. Still, for a 9-parameter, 4-required analytics query with zero schema coverage and several near-identical siblings, the description supplies neither the required date/event semantics nor any routing to alternatives, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.
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 9 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and fails to meet it. It mentions only channel_pid, and even that is redundant with the required list, leaving event_name, date_from/date_to format, breakdown, product_ref, product_name, cursor, and connection_context entirely unexplained.
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 event totals" names a rough verb and resource, so the agent knows it is a read of aggregated event counts. However, it gives no signal distinguishing this from close siblings like mmp_insights_get_product_event_today, mmp_insights_get_product_today, or mmp_insights_query_product_cohort, so the boundary between 'summary', 'today', and 'cohort' is left to inference.
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 only usage-shaped statement is "channel_pid required," which is a parameter constraint rather than guidance on when to choose this tool. There is no mention of when-not-to-use it or which sibling covers time-limited or cohort-scoped questions.
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.