neuron_stop_campaignPermanently stop an active campaign and refund the remaining unspent budget to the organization's wallet. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique identifier (UUID) of the active campaign to stop |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the action is permanent and refunds budget, providing useful context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with 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 two concise sentences, each adding value without unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given one required parameter and no output schema, the description explains the primary action and effect (refund, permanence). Combined with annotations, it provides sufficient context for the agent to understand usage and outcomes.
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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level information, so a 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 'Permanently stop an active campaign and refund the remaining unspent budget to the organization's wallet.' It uses a specific verb ('stop'), identifies the resource ('active campaign'), and includes the refund effect, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_campaign.
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 finality with 'This action cannot be undone,' but does not explicitly differentiate from pause_campaign or other alternatives. The refund detail provides context for when to use, but no direct comparisons to siblings.
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.