create_web_pixelCreate a web conversion source to track ad actions, returning an internal source ID and public pixel ID with automatic advanced matching enabled.
Creates a web conversion source and returns both an internal source ID (clidsrc_*) and a public pixel_id. Web pixels automatically support automatic advanced matching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Descriptive name (e.g. 'Acme website') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose the core effect (creation), the returned IDs (clidsrc_*, pixel_id), and automatic advanced matching. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, immediate usability of the pixel, or any side effects beyond creation, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 imperative sentence that front-loads the action and return values; the advanced-matching clause is relevant and not padding.
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 one-parameter creation tool, it clearly states the input (name via schema), the side effect, and the key returned values, even without an output schema. It does not document response shape or next-step usage, but the essential information for invoking the tool is present.
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 covers the name parameter 100%, including a descriptive example, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no additional meaning for the name parameter beyond what the schema already gives.
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 ('web pixel'/'web conversion source') and action ('creates'), and specifies the two returned identifiers, which separates it from sibling conversion-tracking tools. The additional automatic advanced matching behavior adds context beyond the title.
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 on when to choose this over sibling conversion-tracking tools such as create_conversion_api_key, create_conversion_event_setting, or inspect_recent_pixel_events. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.