list_conversion_eventsRetrieve paginated conversion postbacks from TrafficOX trackers, newest first, with filters for status, event type, and visitor ID to inspect conversion outcomes.
Conversion postbacks received by a tracker, newest first, paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Conversion tracker ID | |
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| per_page | No | Default 50, max 100 | |
| event_type | No | ||
| visitor_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds ordering ('newest first') and that results are paginated, but says nothing about default page size, rate limits, or what a postback record contains.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, ordering, and pagination with no filler. It is efficient, though borderline terse given how much it leaves unexplained.
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 6-parameter filtered list with 33% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the filterable dimensions (status, event_type, visitor) and default paging. Instead it covers only ordering and the bare fact of pagination, leaving the agent under-informed about how to call 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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%: 'id' and 'per_page' are documented in the schema, while page, status, event_type, and visitor_id have no descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 6-parameter tool.
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?
States a specific resource ('Conversion postbacks received by a tracker') plus ordering, so the agent knows this lists conversion events scoped to one tracker, which separates it from list_orders or list_conversion_trackers. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or restating the verb 'list' outside the tool 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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With close siblings like list_conversion_trackers and get_conversion_tracker in the toolset, an agent gets no explicit rule for choosing this tool, only an implicit read of its purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.