list_campaignsList campaigns with status and lead count, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100. | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor: pass `meta.nextCursor` from the previous page. Omit for the first page. | |
| status | No | ||
| tagIds | No | Campaigns carrying ANY of these campaign tag ids. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "draft",
- "scheduled",
- "active",
- "paused",
- "stopped",
- "completed",
- "failed"
-]New value: +[
+ "draft",
+ "scheduled",
+ "active",
+ "paused",
+ "completed",
+ "failed"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond that: result ordering ('newest first') and which fields come back ('status and lead count'). It does not mention pagination behavior or what happens when filters match nothing, so it stops short of rich behavioral disclosure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the returned fields and sort order come before any optional detail. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves room that a second short clause about filtering could have filled.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the two returned fields and the sort order, which is the right compensation. However, for a 4-parameter filterable list tool it omits how the status and tagIds filters combine and any hint about pagination, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.
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 75%, close to the point where the schema carries the load; limit and cursor are fully documented there. The undescribed status enum and tagIds filter are not explained in the description either — 'with status' refers to a returned field, not the filter — so the description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List campaigns') plus the fields returned ('status and lead count') and the ordering ('newest first'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_campaign or list_subsequences, but the collection-vs-single split is obvious from the name pairing.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_campaign (single campaign detail) or the subsequence/mailbox list tools, and no mention of when the status or tagIds filters should be applied. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
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.