Simulate synthetic ad click journeys to validate click-to-account attribution and conversion tracking locally.
Simulate a synthetic click-to-account attribution journey locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| leadId | No | ||
| consent | No | ||
| eventId | No | ||
| orderId | No | ||
| accountId | No | ||
| formFields | No | ||
| redirectPreservesQuery | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Simulate... locally' hints at a non-production, non-external operation, but the description does not disclose what the tool actually does with the 8 inputs, whether it returns output, what side effects it may have, or what 'journey' entails.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words and the verb is front-loaded. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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?
This description is far from complete given the tool's complexity: 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. There is no guidance on behavior, parameter relationships, expected result, or prerequisites. An agent would lack the information needed to invoke it correctly.
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 none of the 8 parameters (url, leadId, consent, formFields, eventId, orderId, accountId, redirectPreservesQuery) is mentioned or explained. The description adds zero meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving agents with no help understanding semantics.
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 action ('Simulate') and a concrete object ('a synthetic click-to-account attribution journey'), which makes it distinctive from diagnosis and validation siblings. The key word 'locally' adds useful scoping to the purpose, though the meaning of 'journey' is a bit abstract.
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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_attribution_pipeline, capture_click_id_schema, or diagnose_missing_click_ids. It only implies local simulation or testing, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.