Read event totals; channel_pid required
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | Yes | ||
| breakdown | No | ||
| date_from | Yes | ||
| 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 them – no note on aggregation window, breakdown behavior, or result shape – so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.
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 fragments with no padding and the purpose clause front-loaded, which is structurally sound. However, the terseness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it does not earn a higher mark.
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 is present, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. But with four required and three optional parameters at zero description coverage and four confusable siblings, the definition leaves too much unanswered for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only flags channel_pid, which the required array already communicates. The semantics of event_name, date_from, date_to, breakdown, product_ref, and product_name are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 verb and a resource, so the basic purpose is inferable, but it does not clarify what an "event summary" aggregates or how it differs from siblings like mmp_insights_get_product_event_today or mmp_insights_query_product_cohort. The scope that would let an agent select correctly is absent.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the near-identical sibling event/cohort/today variants. "channel_pid required" is a schema restatement, not selection guidance. An agent has no basis for routing among four closely named mmp_insights tools.
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.