List campaigns. List mail campaigns for your organization with optional filtering. Each campaign has one of six statuses: draft, ready, active, paused, ended or archived. Use accepting_properties=true to list the campaigns properties can be added to now. Archived campaigns are excluded unless status=archived is supplied. Retrieves data without changing records or spending credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / query / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter by campaign status: draft, ready, active, paused or ended. The older values completed and cancelled still work and match the ended campaigns they matched before."New value: +"Filter by campaign status: draft, ready, active, paused, ended or archived. The older values completed and cancelled still work and match the ended campaigns they matched before."Input schema / properties / query / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "draft",
- "ready",
- "active",
- "paused",
- "ended",
- "completed",
- "cancelled"
-]New value: +[
+ "draft",
+ "ready",
+ "active",
+ "paused",
+ "ended",
+ "archived",
+ "completed",
+ "cancelled"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: archived campaigns are hidden by default, and the call spends no mail credits — a domain-specific cost signal that matters in this tool family.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then the credit note. Slightly redundant opening ("List campaigns" followed immediately by "List mail campaigns..."), but every later sentence carries real information.
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 filtered list tool with no output schema and all-optional nested params, the description covers statuses, default exclusions and the cost profile. Missing are result ordering/pagination expectations and what a campaign object contains, though the absence of an output schema lowers that burden.
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 nested schema already documents page, search, per_page, status and accepting_properties in detail, so the description mostly restates them. It does add value by explaining the default archived exclusion and the accepting_properties predicate, but it omits search/pagination semantics and never mentions the legacy completed/cancelled enum values present in the schema.
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 and resource ("List mail campaigns for your organization") plus the scope of filtering, which cleanly separates it from dealmachine_get_mail_campaigns_id (single campaign) and the mail analytics/design/return-address list tools. An agent can identify the right tool without opening a schema.
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?
Gives concrete usage conditions: use accepting_properties=true to find campaigns that can take properties now, and supply status=archived to see archived campaigns. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use for a single campaign or for analytics, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
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.