List MailerCloud campaigns with pagination. Returns campaign names, IDs, subjects, statuses, and performance metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Number of campaigns to return (min 10) | |
| api_key | No | MailerCloud API key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds details about the returned data fields, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination behavior such as default page size or how the response is structured. With strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the key return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 operation with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It does not explain pagination defaults or output format, but no output schema exists and the core purpose and return fields are stated. Slightly more detail on pagination would make it fully complete.
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 100%, so all three parameters (page, limit, api_key) are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions pagination but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('MailerCloud campaigns') and adds pagination context. It also lists the returned fields (names, IDs, subjects, statuses, performance metrics), which distinguishes it from other campaign-related tools like analyze_campaign or get_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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states only what the tool does, not when to choose it over siblings such as get_campaign or analyze_campaign. For a list operation, the intended use is somewhat implied, but explicit context or exclusions are missing.
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 purposes are largely distinct, with clear separation between CRUD operations, analytics, and deliverability tools. Some overlap exists between get_campaign, analyze_campaign, and campaign_health_dashboard, but descriptions clarify scope sufficiently.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, create_, update_, delete_, send_). Minor exceptions like campaign_health_dashboard and engagement_funnel are descriptive but break the pattern.
With 47 tools, this is a very large surface area. While the variety reflects the breadth of email marketing operations, the count exceeds what is typically manageable and suggests potential redundancy or over-scoping.
The tool set covers most core workflows: contact/list management, campaign lifecycle, templates, webhooks, analytics, and transactional email. Minor gaps like no delete for templates or tags are acceptable but not fatal.
