List existing email campaigns with their status, sent count, open/click rates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | Filter by status: draft, active, completed, paused | |
| campaign_type | No | myconvo or nextgen |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds value by indicating the return includes status, sent count, and open/click rates, which helps set expectations. It does not disclose pagination or filtering behavior, but these are partially covered by the schema.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant words and conveys the core purpose and return fields efficiently.
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 simple list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It states what is listed and what metrics are returned. However, it lacks nuances like default behavior, filtering options, or differentiation from stat-focused siblings, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding between tools.
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 67% (status and campaign_type have descriptions, limit does not). The description does not explain parameter usage or add meaning beyond the schema. For instance, it does not clarify that 'limit' controls the number of returned campaigns. Baseline is 3 due to moderate schema coverage, and the description does not compensate for the missing limit 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'existing email campaigns', and specifies the returned fields (status, sent count, open/click rates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign_stats and list_campaign_templates by focusing on listing campaigns with their metrics.
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 implies usage for listing campaigns but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention related tools like get_campaign_stats for single-campaign stats or list_campaign_templates. Usage is inferred from the name and schema rather than stated.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical roles (create_contact/add_contacts/save_contacts_to_crm/upload_contacts; add_companies/create_company; search_contacts/search_crm_contacts/find_contacts_at_companies), and the names don't clearly reveal whether they operate on saved or prospected data. Although the descriptions clarify some boundaries, an agent would frequently need to read many descriptions carefully to avoid mis-selection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as list_campaigns, create_deal, and update_contact. Minor deviations like company_intelligence, get_icp, load_more_contacts, and the inconsistent use of add_/create_/upload_/save_ for similar creation actions keep it from being fully consistent.
51 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold. Even for a broad CRM/prospecting/marketing platform, exposing this many tools at once makes agent selection costly and unwieldy.
Contact and company creation/read/update are covered, but delete is absent across the board, and campaigns can be drafted, listed, and measured but not edited, activated, paused, or deleted. Deals, forms, and landing pages also lack update/delete lifecycle actions, creating meaningful dead ends for common CRM workflows.
