Ingest funnel events and conversions for ad campaigns; use a stable dedupe key to make retries safe and prevent duplicate records.
Ingest a funnel event or conversion. A stable dedupe_key makes retries safe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| amount | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| tracking | No | ||
| dedupe_key | No | ||
| event_name | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| visitor_id | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| external_id | No | ||
| occurred_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does valuable work by disclosing idempotency semantics ('a stable dedupe_key makes retries safe'), which is real context an agent needs. However, it says nothing about what happens on conflicting non-matching data, auth/permission needs, or what the tool returns on success.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the idempotency caveat second. It is efficient, though for a 15-parameter ingestion endpoint the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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?
A mutation endpoint with 15 parameters, a nested tracking object, no annotations, and no output schema requires substantially more description than two sentences. The agent is left guessing about event timing, currency pairing with amount, and the meaning of most tracking fields.
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 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. Only dedupe_key gets any explanatory treatment; critical fields like kind (an enum of event types), occurred_at, amount/currency, count, and the nested tracking object are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Ingest a funnel event or conversion'), which clearly distinguishes this write tool from the read/report siblings such as ads_network_conversion_report and ads_campaign_analytics. It does not explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over, so it falls short of a 5.
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 clause about a stable dedupe_key genuinely implies a usage pattern (retry-safe ingestion), giving more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of when to prefer ads_spend_record for spend, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.