search-broadcast-campaignsSearches authorized broadcast campaigns by name, status, message channel, and bounded delivery fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of campaigns to return. | |
| query | No | Campaign name, message, or channel. | |
| status | No | Campaign status. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the 'authorized' scoping and the search dimensions, but does not clarify how results are bounded or whether the 'bounded delivery fields' correspond to visible schema properties.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the distinguishing filters. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 read-only search with three optional, fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. The only gap is the ambiguous 'bounded delivery fields' phrase and the absence of any return-format note, but the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the obvious list-of-campaigns result.
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?
The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates name/channel search, which is in the query parameter description, and introduces the vague 'bounded delivery fields' without mapping it to a schema field, adding little 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?
The description states a clear action ('Searches') on a specific resource ('authorized broadcast campaigns') and names the filter dimensions (name, status, message channel, and delivery bounds), which separates it from sibling search/preview tools for other campaign types. The resource label 'broadcast campaigns' is enough to avoid confusion with search-reactivation-campaigns or preview-broadcast-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?
Usage is implied by the resource and action: use it when you need to find broadcast campaigns. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related siblings such as preview-broadcast-campaign or when not to use it.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.