neuron_fund_campaignFund an approved campaign by deducting the total budget from the organization's wallet balance. Requires sufficient wallet funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique identifier (UUID) of the approved campaign to fund |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool deducts wallet balance, indicating a mutation. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., insufficient funds) or idempotency, and annotations are minimally informative. More context on side effects would improve transparency.
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?
Two concise sentences with no superfluous information. Front-loaded with action and resource, followed by prerequisite. 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?
The description covers the action, resource, effect (deduction), and prerequisite. Given a single parameter and no output schema, it is mostly complete, though it could mention return value or success/failure indication.
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 sole parameter 'id' is well-documented in the schema (UUID of approved campaign). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so 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 states the verb 'Fund', resource 'approved campaign', and mechanism 'deducting from wallet balance'. It distinguishes from campaign creation, submission, pausing, etc. by specifying the action on approved campaigns.
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 mentions a prerequisite (sufficient wallet funds) and implies the campaign must be approved, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like neuron_fund_ad_request, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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 are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.
309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.