crm_gapsEvery unresolved gap with its note and age — what we verifiably do not know, as a worklist. This view existing is the point of CRM-2: the unknowns are work items, not blank cells nobody looks at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | No | Only this campaign. An existing campaign id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that results include each gap's note and age, and that only unresolved gaps are returned, but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or broader response behavior.
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 first sentence is front-loaded and informative. The second sentence is philosophical framing about CRM-2 rather than invocation-relevant detail, so part of the description does not directly help an agent select or call the tool.
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 with one optional filter, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description provides enough context: it states that it returns unresolved gaps with note and age. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently indicates the returned content for this simple tool.
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?
There is one optional campaign_id parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the campaign filter at all, but with full schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource as unresolved gaps and describes the output as a worklist containing each gap's note and age. It is specific about contents and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as crm_resolve_gap or crm_coverage.
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 worklist framing implies the tool is for reviewing unresolved gaps that need attention, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus crm_resolve_gap, crm_coverage, or other CRM views. Usage is inferable but not guided.
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.