inspect_recent_pixel_eventsVerify browser pixel events sent through the JavaScript SDK by retrieving up to 50 raw events received by OpenAI in the previous 15 minutes for a pixel ID.
Test and verify incoming browser pixel events. Returns up to 50 raw events received by OpenAI from the JavaScript pixel SDK during the previous 15 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pixel_id | Yes | The Pixel ID (from create_web_pixel) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the 50-event cap, the 15-minute window, and the event source ('received by OpenAI from the JavaScript pixel SDK'), which gives the agent realistic expectations about scope and recency limits.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value, including the response limit and time window.
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 single-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description covers the essential invocation context: what events are returned, how many, and from what time window. It does not describe the exact structure of the raw events, but with no output schema, the phrase 'raw events' plus the source and recency window is reasonably complete for a low-complexity tool.
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 100%, and the pixel_id parameter is already documented as coming from create_web_pixel. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to since the schema already provides sufficient context. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description states a specific action ('test and verify') on a clear resource ('incoming browser pixel events') and explicitly says it returns raw events. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like send_test_conversion_event.
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 wording 'test and verify incoming browser pixel events' implies the tool is used for validating pixel integration, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.