Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Meta Ads MCP

Meta Ads MCP

by AbnerZx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

pixels_get_stats

Get fired-event statistics for a Meta pixel, aggregated by event, browser, device, or URL to analyze performance.

Instructions

Get fired-event statistics for a pixel.

Args: aggregation: event, browser_type, custom_data_field, device_os, device_type, host, pixel_fire, url.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pixel_id": "<pixel_id>"
    },
    "name": "pixels_get_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pixel_idYes
aggregationNoevent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether it's read-only, rate limits, required permissions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs analytics queries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is concise, though the list format is a bit terse. It earns its place without unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the aggregation options but lacks details about the return format, time ranges, or any filtering constraints. It is adequate for basic understanding but missing output expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's list of valid aggregation values (event, browser_type, etc.) adds meaningful context. However, it does not explain the semantics of each aggregation value or describe the pixel_id parameter beyond its schema type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get fired-event statistics for a pixel' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling pixel tools like pixels_get, pixels_list, and pixels_send_capi_event by focusing on statistics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or complementary tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools