Retrieve tracking pixels for a specified team, with optional pagination, search, ordering, and sorting controls to manage team pixel data.
List tracking pixels belonging to a team
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| teamId | Yes | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sortDescending | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about pagination defaults, sort behavior, what a 'search' matches, or what fields come back on each pixel.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is efficient partly by omitting information the agent needs, so it is not fully earning its brevity as a strength.
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?
With six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent without enough to call the tool confidently — pagination semantics, ordering options, and return shape are all undeclared.
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 0% across six parameters, and the description explains none of them. Names like 'search', 'orderBy', and 'sortDescending' are guessable, but 'search' in particular is ambiguous — whether it matches pixel name, ID, or URL is unstated, and 'orderBy' has no enumerable values in the schema.
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?
The description names a specific verb (List), resource (tracking pixels), and scope (belonging to a team), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_pixels tool and matches the naming family of list_team_users, list_team_websites, and list_team_links. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent between list_pixels and list_team_pixels, but the 'team' qualifier carries that distinction for most readers.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this versus list_pixels, nor are any prerequisites, pagination expectations, or exclusions stated. The agent must infer the team-scoped alternative purely 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.