get_upcoming_sendsRead upcoming sends for your team.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_upcoming_sends"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| types | No | ||
| emails | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| campaign_id | No | ||
| profile_ids | No | ||
| include_overdue | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / campaign_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Campaign Id"
+}Input schema / properties / include_overdueAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Include Overdue",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description's only added context is the team scoping, and it says nothing about pagination behaviour, default ordering, or what time window 'upcoming' covers.
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?
One short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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 an eight-parameter list tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this description leaves far too much unstated — filtering semantics, pagination, and the return shape are all missing.
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?
Eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Ambiguous fields like 'q', 'types', 'emails', 'profile_ids' and 'include_overdue' are left entirely undefined in both structured data and prose.
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-plus-resource ('Read upcoming sends') and adds a scope qualifier ('for your team'), so an agent knows this is the read-only variant of the upcoming-send family. It does not explicitly contrast itself with cancel_upcoming_send, edit_upcoming_send or reschedule_upcoming_send, but the verb 'Read' does most of the disambiguation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling mutation tools, no prerequisites, no note on what makes a send 'upcoming'. An agent must infer everything from the name alone.
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.