Lists the campaigns you run or help run (Owner, Editor or Viewer). Every other tool takes one of these ids.
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_campaigns"
}
}| 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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's value-add is the disclosure that results are permission-filtered by the caller's role (Owner, Editor, Viewer) rather than a global campaign listing. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It stops short of stating whether results are paginated or how large the list may be.
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 short sentences, no filler. The result-scope constraint is front-loaded and the inter-tool dependency statement follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant facts come first.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns conceptually (campaign ids used by all other tools) and who sees which campaigns. Only return shape details and any pagination or result-cap behavior are left implicit, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 takes no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of 'these ids' usefully signals what the objects in the result carry, even though no arguments exist.
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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (campaigns), plus the access boundary that defines the result set: campaigns you run or help run as Owner, Editor or Viewer. The second sentence positions it against every sibling tool by declaring that all of them consume the ids returned here.
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?
Usage is clearly implied and practically enforced: because 'every other tool takes one of these ids,' an agent knows this is the entry point to call first. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the no-parameter, zero-overlap nature of the tool makes the routing unambiguous.
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.