Playbooks and Intent-led campaign audiences: which signals they watch, Review first or Autopilot, matches, people added and credits used this month.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_playbooks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing returned data (signals watched, Review first or Autopilot, matches, people added, credits used), but it does not describe format, pagination, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentence but is structured as a fragment without a leading action verb. It front-loads the resource names but then lists many return fields in a run-on manner, which slightly hinders quick comprehension.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does list several data points. However, it omits critical context such as whether the result is a list, pagination behavior, or the overall shape of the response, leaving gaps for an agent to call the tool confidently.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for parameter semantics, and the schema is fully empty with no parameter documentation required.
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 names the resources (playbooks and Intent-led campaign audiences) but lacks a clear action verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like list_campaigns or list_intent_leads, leaving the agent to infer the core purpose from the name alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply enumerates return content without indicating the appropriate context for invocation.
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.