Record advertising spend and daily platform metrics with a stable dedupe key so sync retries do not create duplicate entries.
Record spend and daily platform metrics. A stable dedupe_key makes sync retries safe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| day | No | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| clicks | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| dedupe_key | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| external_id | No | ||
| impressions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency/retry safety through dedupe_key and implies a write operation, but omits permissions, duplicate-handling details, overwrite/upsert semantics, and response behavior.
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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The dedupe_key note is relevant and compact.
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 an 11-parameter write tool with no annotations or output schema, this is under-specified. It gives purpose and an idempotency hint but not enough parameter, validation, or behavioral context to invoke safely without relying on the schema.
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% and there are 11 parameters, so the description must compensate substantially. It explains only dedupe_key, leaving required fields such as campaign_id, provider, and amount plus all metrics fields undocumented.
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 concrete verb ("Record") and concrete resources ("spend and daily platform metrics"), so the operation is identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling sync/report tools, but the ingest-oriented purpose is clear.
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 second sentence gives one usage condition: a stable dedupe_key makes sync retries safe. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling sync/report tools, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.