Queue message generation for pending contacts in one campaign without requiring campaign_contact_id or step_id. Dispatches at most 10 contacts per call and returns immediately; use list_campaign_queue or list_pending_approvals to check progress. Repeat only when remaining_pending is greater than zero.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Contacts to queue now (default 10, max 10). | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important runtime behavior: it dispatches at most 10 contacts, returns immediately rather than blocking, and requires polling via list_campaign_queue or list_pending_approvals. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint false and idempotentHint true, by explaining the asynchronous nature and the output-side progress check.
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 concise and well-ordered: what it does, key constraint, async behavior, and follow-up action. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
The description covers the core workflow: enqueue batch work, check progress, and know when to stop. It lacks explicit failure modes or authentication context, but for an async queueing tool the provided operational guidance is sufficient.
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 campaign_id and limit, so the description adds little parameter-level detail. It reinforces the maximum batch size ('at most 10 contacts per call') and hints at a 'remaining_pending' state, but does not clarify the meaning of each parameter beyond what the schema provides.
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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Queue message generation for pending contacts in a campaign.' It also clarifies the unusual precondition that campaign_contact_id and step_id are not needed, which strongly distinguishes this from per-message generation tools like generate_campaign_message.
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 gives actionable follow-up guidance: use list_campaign_queue or list_pending_approvals to check progress-lasting. It also states the repeat condition 'only when remaining_pending is greater than zero,' which helps an agent decide when to stop. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives like generate_campaign_message, but the async queue context is clear enough.
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.
