cancel_voice_campaignCANCEL a running, paused or scheduled voice campaign for good: no more calls, and it cannot be started again (clone it or follow it up for a new one). Contacts and results stay readable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign id as returned by list_voice_campaigns. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / campaign_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Campaign id as returned by list_voice_campaigns.",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / display_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The campaign's `id` (its number within the account).",
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "display_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "campaign_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructive annotation, the description explains the irreversibility, that no more calls will occur, that the campaign cannot be restarted, and that contacts and results remain readable. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive cancel.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The critical permanence warning comes immediately after the verb and resource.
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 destructive tool with annotations already declaring destructiveness, the description covers the key consequences, recovery path, and data retention. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single campaign_id parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: it CANCELs a voice campaign and explicitly limits scope to running, paused, or scheduled campaigns. It also clarifies the permanent effect and retained data, but it does not explicitly distinguish cancel_voice_campaign from the sibling delete_voice_campaign.
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?
It clearly states the applicable campaign states and advises cloning or following up when a new campaign is needed. That gives strong usage context, though it does not explicitly say when to choose delete_voice_campaign or pause_voice_campaign instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.