list_campaignsList up to 50 campaign summaries, newest first. Use next_before_id as before_id for the next page. Read complete settings with get_campaign.
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": "list_campaigns"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| before_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds ordering ('newest first'), the page-size ceiling, and the cursor continuation pattern, which the annotations don't carry. It doesn't say what a summary record actually contains, though there is no output schema to fall back on.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: page shape and ordering first, then continuation, then the pointer to the detail tool. No filler and front-loaded.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool this covers page size, ordering, cursor continuation, and the escape hatch to get_campaign. The one soft spot is that next_before_id is referenced with no output schema to confirm the field name.
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 0%, so the description has to compensate more than it does. It clarifies before_id's role as a paging cursor ('use next_before_id as before_id') and confirms the 50 cap, but never explains limit's default of 20 or that before_id is an ID-based cursor rather than an offset or date.
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 and resource plus scope ('up to 50 campaign summaries, newest first') and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_campaign, which returns complete settings. An agent can pick between the list view and the detail view without inspecting either schema.
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?
Names the concrete alternative (get_campaign) and the condition that selects it ('read complete settings'). It also gives the pagination recipe. What's missing is any signal on when this list is the wrong starting point, e.g. filtering by status or name.
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.