Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ads MCP for Snapchat

Ads MCP for Snapchat

by Usame794
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

snap_capi_test_event

Send one test event to Snap's Conversions API validate endpoint to verify server-side tracking is built correctly. Preview first, then confirm with an approval token; Snap does not count it as a real conversion.

Instructions

Send ONE test event to Snap's Conversions API validate endpoint, to check your server-side tracking is built correctly. It is a test: Snap does not count it as a real conversion, and this server has no tool that sends real conversion events. Events: PAGE_VIEW, VIEW_CONTENT, ADD_CART, START_CHECKOUT, SIGN_UP, PURCHASE. A PURCHASE needs value and currency. The email, if given, is hashed here and only the hash is sent. Read the answer with snap_capi_status. Previews unless confirm=true. Two steps: confirm=false returns a preview and an approval_token; to apply, repeat the same arguments with confirm=true and that approval_token.

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": {
      "event_name": "<event_name>",
      "event_source_url": "<event_source_url>"
    },
    "name": "snap_capi_test_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNo
valueNo
confirmNofalse = preview only (nothing sent). true = apply; needs approval_token from the preview.
currencyNo3 capital letters, e.g. USD
order_idNo
pixel_idNo
event_nameYes
approval_tokenNoThe approval_token returned by the preview of this exact request. Required with confirm=true.
event_source_urlYesAn https page of your store

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the event is not counted as a conversion, the email is hashed locally and only the hash is transmitted, PURCHASE has extra data requirements, and nothing is sent until confirm=true with an approval_token. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or what the preview response contains, so it falls short of fully self-describing.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the test caveat before enumerating event types and the confirm flow, with no filler sentences. Some content, notably the preview/confirm explanation, overlaps with the confirm and approval_token schema descriptions, making the final sentence partly redundant.

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 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical calling protocol and the safety-profile caveats, and points to snap_capi_status for the result. It still leaves an agent guessing about error responses, whether repeated confirm calls duplicate sends, and the meaning of pixel_id and order_id.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 44%, and the description compensates by documenting the conditional requirement that PURCHASE needs value and currency (a constraint the required list of event_name and event_source_url does not enforce) and by explaining the email hashing semantics. It also restates the confirm/approval_token handshake, but pixel_id and order_id remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send ONE test event to Snap's Conversions API validate endpoint') and immediately bounds the scope by declaring the server has no tool that sends real conversion events. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools such as snap_capi_status without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('to check your server-side tracking is built correctly'), an explicit when-not ('It is a test: Snap does not count it as a real conversion'), and routes the follow-up to snap_capi_status for reading the answer. It also spells out the two-step preview/apply procedure and the condition that triggers the second call.

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