Check a campaign step's subject and body for spam triggers
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"stepId": "<stepId>"
},
"name": "check_step_spam_score"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stepId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'check', which implies read-only but doesn't confirm it, nor does it describe the output format, possible side effects, or any limitations. Minimal behavioral context is provided.
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 with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Check' and clearly states the subject. Perfectly concise.
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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to describe what the result looks like (e.g., a spam score, a list of triggers), what the agent should do with the output, or any prerequisites. This incompleteness could hinder correct tool usage.
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 has only 'stepId' with no description (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'stepId' refers to a campaign step and that the check covers subject/body, providing some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the stepId is the identifier to be used for the check, leaving a small inference gap.
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's function: 'Check a campaign step's subject and body for spam triggers.' It specifies the exact resource (campaign step) and the specific aspects to be checked (subject and body), distinguishing it from siblings like check_email_spam_score and check_domain_deliverability.
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 campaign steps, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this tool over check_email_spam_score or check_domain_deliverability. No direct 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided.
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.