campaign_pipeline_statsPipeline-stage breakdown for one outreach campaign — total / sent / active / won / lost, reply rate, and per-stage lead counts. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign UUID (from list_outreach_campaigns). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so agent knows it's safe and non-destructive. Description adds only 'Requires authentication', which is minor. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness) are disclosed, but the description does not contradict annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Key information is front-loaded: first sentence explains purpose, second adds authentication requirement. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given low complexity (one param, has output schema, annotations complete), the description is sufficient. It lists the metrics returned, though it could explicitly note that output schema documents the structure. Minor gap: no mention of time range or campaign status requirements, but not critical for a stats tool.
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 has 100% coverage: one parameter with description 'Campaign UUID (from list_outreach_campaigns).' Description reinforces that it's for one campaign but adds no new parameter details. 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?
Description clearly states verb ('Pipeline-stage breakdown') and resource ('one outreach campaign'), listing specific metrics (total/sent/active/won/lost, reply rate, per-stage lead counts). Distinguishes from siblings like 'list_outreach_campaigns' (which lists campaigns) and 'outreach_analytics' (likely broader).
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?
Description mentions 'Requires authentication' and implies use for a single campaign, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'outreach_analytics' or 'get_deal_health'. Still, context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clearly separate overlapping domains (e.g., consulting vs. marketing vs. outreach). Even within the same domain, tools like 'create_consulting_deliverable' and 'create_consulting_document_revision' are unambiguous due to their specific nouns.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., 'create_invoice', 'get_deal', 'list_agents'). The few exceptions like 'locus_determine_from_scores' still adhere to the verb_noun structure and do not break the pattern.
With 124 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for typical MCP use. The tool count far exceeds the '50+ extreme mismatch' threshold, making it nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently navigate or select the right tool without extensive context. Even a large platform should consolidate or expose fewer tools.
The tool surface covers CRUD and lifecycle operations across at least 10 domains (sales, consulting, marketing, outreach, accounting, workflows, ticketing, API keys, feedback, platform metrics). Each domain appears to have no obvious gaps—e.g., invoicing includes create, update, send, mark paid, void; ticketing includes create, update, archive, dependencies, batch, scenarios, validation.