assign_leads_to_campaignAssign one or more of the user's existing leads to one of the user's campaigns (both must be owned by the caller). Returns how many were assigned. Idempotent. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_ids | Yes | Lead ids to assign (from search_outreach_leads). | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Target campaign id (from list_outreach_campaigns). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "text"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'Idempotent' while the annotation idempotentHint is false. This is a direct contradiction, which severely misleads an agent about the tool's behavior. Any other behavioral notes (returns count, requires auth) are overshadowed by this inconsistency.
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 with all key facts front-loaded: action, ownership, return value, idempotency, and auth. No wasted words.
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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials, but the contradiction on idempotency leaves the agent uncertain about retry behavior. This gap prevents full completeness.
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% with descriptions pointing to source tools for both parameters. The description adds the ownership constraint that applies to both parameters, but no further parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (assign), the resource (leads to campaign), and the ownership constraint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_outreach_leads or create_outreach_campaign by specifying 'existing leads' and 'existing campaigns' owned by the caller.
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 by indicating leads and campaigns must already exist and be owned by the caller, which is a prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to apply this tool versus others.
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.