Pause a campaign — stop starting new calls; in-flight ones finish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but pausing a campaign changes its runtime state (no new calls are started), directly contradicting the read-only claim. The description's detail about in-flight calls is useful, but the conflict between the stated mutating behavior and the annotation is a serious inconsistency.
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?
A single tight sentence with the effect front-loaded and the in-flight caveat second. Every word earns its place and nothing is padded.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main behavioral question (what happens to running calls). It is incomplete on permissions, immediacy, and how pause relates to resume/cancel, and it leaves campaign_id unexplained.
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 only 50%: in_workspace is documented in the schema, but campaign_id has no description anywhere. The tool description adds no parameter guidance whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the gap.
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 (pause) and resource (campaign) plus the operational meaning: new calls stop, in-flight calls finish. This implicitly separates it from a hard 'cancel', though the description never names campaigns_cancel or campaigns_resume explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and by 'stop starting new calls; in-flight ones finish', which hints at when pause is preferable to cancel. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the campaigns_* 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.