Progress of one campaign: status and per-number counts.
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result contains status and per-number counts; it says nothing about freshness, polling behavior, or what 'per-number' refers to.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the fragmentary 'Progress of one campaign' phrasing is slightly terse even for a compact tool.
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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is roughly adequate, but 'per-number counts' is left ambiguous (counts of what, per which number type), and no return-value shape is hinted at. An agent knows it is a read but not much about the payload.
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 coverage is 50%: in_workspace is documented in the schema, but campaign_id has no description in either place. The phrase 'one campaign' implies campaign_id selects a single campaign, so the description adds marginal meaning but does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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 resource ('one campaign') and the data returned ('status and per-number counts'), which meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling campaigns_list. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name any sibling, but the scope is clear enough to route correctly.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions alternatives like campaigns_list or campaigns_pause. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool 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.