mcp-openai-ads

List recent conversion events

list_recent_conversion_events

Read-only

List recent raw conversion events for a pixel to verify the pixel or Conversions API integration is firing.

Instructions

List recent raw conversion events received for a pixel/source. Useful to verify a pixel or Conversions API integration is firing.

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": "list_recent_conversion_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`pixel_id`	Yes	The pixel/source id (pid).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 adds the useful "raw" qualifier (raw vs. processed events) but says nothing about ordering, time window, pagination, or rate limits for what is meant by "recent".

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Every clause contributes information an agent can act on.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only listing tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. Minor gaps remain around default limit, time window for "recent", and ordering of returned events.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: pixel_id is documented in the schema itself, while limit (1-100) has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning to either parameter and does not explain the default limit or what "recent" covers, leaving the limit parameter's semantics unspecified across all sources.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (list) plus resource (recent raw conversion events) scoped to a pixel/source, which is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_conversion_setup. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling to prefer when the agent wants setup/config rather than raw events.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Useful to verify a pixel or Conversions API integration is firing" gives an explicit diagnostic use case, so an agent knows when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., list_conversion_setup) or any exclusion condition.

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

Deploy Server