search_campaigns_by_namesFind wizard campaigns by partial case-insensitive names. Returns matching campaign IDs, names, statuses, and available configuration details. This resolves a campaign name to an ID for later reads or authorized changes; it does not launch or modify a campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_names | Yes | Array of campaign names or partial names to search for (case-insensitive, partial matching) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure of what comes back (IDs, names, statuses, configuration details) and the explicit statement that it does not launch or modify. It does not mention result limits, pagination, or behavior when no campaign matches.
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, front-loaded with the verb and matching rule, followed by return content and the negative scope. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields, and it clarifies the read-only resolution role. Minor gap: no guidance on empty results or the fact that multiple names can be supplied in one call.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the array of names and the case-insensitive partial matching. The description restates the matching behavior but adds no multi-name semantics (e.g. union vs. per-name results) beyond what the schema says.
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 (find/search) and resource (wizard campaigns) plus the matching semantics (partial, case-insensitive). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_wizard_campaigns (enumerate all), get_campaign_by_wizard_id (lookup by ID), and search_campaigns_by_utm_value (different key).
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?
Explicitly frames the tool as name-to-ID resolution for later reads or authorized changes, and explicitly excludes launching or modifying campaigns. It stops short of naming the alternative siblings (list_wizard_campaigns, get_campaign_by_wizard_id, search_campaigns_by_utm_value) that an agent should pick when it already has an ID or UTM value.
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.