invoke_list_campaignsLists campaigns with optional status filter and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size; default 25. | |
| offset | No | Zero-based offset; use next_offset. | |
| status | No | Optional campaign status filter. | |
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to list campaigns from. Required when the user belongs to multiple workspaces. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workspace_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Workspace to list campaigns from. Required when the user belongs to multiple workspaces.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds pagination and status-filter behavior but does not disclose ordering, error cases, or return handling. No contradiction with the annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence containing the action, the resource, and the key modifiers. There is no redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool, the fully documented schema and read-only/idempotent annotations are enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not specify allowed status values or the exact response shape, but the core invocation context is adequately covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains all four parameters including default limit, offset semantics, and workspace_id requirement. The description only restates 'status filter and pagination' at a high level, adding no extra meaning beyond 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?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource, 'Lists campaigns', and adds the optional status filter and pagination, making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from create/update campaign tools and from list_campaign_plan_items by naming the campaign resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.
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 this is the tool to use when listing campaigns and indicates that status filtering and pagination are available. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools like list_campaign_plan_items or list_posts, nor does it mention the workspace_id requirement beyond what the schema already provides.
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.