List all campaigns you own (call, WhatsApp, SMS), including channel, schedule windows, and fallback config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying ownership ('you own') and the fields returned (channel, schedule windows, fallback config), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, scope, and included fields with 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?
Given no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (assumed to detail return values), the description is complete. It specifies the scope (owned campaigns) and key fields, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description has no burden. Baseline 4 applies as schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter confusion.
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 tool lists campaigns owned by the user, specifying channels (call, WhatsApp, SMS) and included details (channel, schedule windows, fallback config). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_calls or list_conversations.
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 for viewing owned campaigns with configuration details. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare with alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides sufficient distinction.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly (e.g., create_assistant vs create_campaign). However, there is some overlap like get_outbound_assistants vs get_assistants and list_all_phone_numbers vs get_phone_numbers, causing minor ambiguity.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_document, delete_label, get_voices). Only minor deviations exist, such as generate_ai_reply and list_all_phone_numbers, but overall the pattern is maintained.
With 75 tools, the server is excessively large. Although the domain is broad (assistants, calls, messaging, etc.), the number of tools makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the correct one, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers CRUD operations for most resources, plus webhooks, AI replies, and reference data fetching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_conversation, no attach phone number to assistant), but the surface is largely comprehensive for the platform's purpose.
