list_campaignsRetrieve the Darkmoon campaigns visible to your dashboard account with their IDs and status; use the returned campaign ID with get_findings to inspect vulnerabilities.
List the Darkmoon campaigns visible to the dashboard user, with ids and status. Use a campaign id with get_findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value on top: it discloses that results are filtered to the calling user's visibility (an authorization scope) and that the payload carries ids and status, which the annotations do not convey.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose and scope front-loaded ahead of the workflow hint. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 in place, the description does the right thing by naming the returned fields (ids, status). It omits ordering, pagination, or truncation behavior, a minor gap for a listing tool but not one that blocks correct invocation.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot be misinterpreted and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; it is not a 5 because there are no argument semantics to enrich.
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 (List) and resource (Darkmoon campaigns) plus the scope ('visible to the dashboard user') and what is returned (ids and status). The handoff to get_findings further anchors it against the sibling listing/retrieval tools.
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 second sentence gives explicit downstream context: take a campaign id and feed it to get_findings. It does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. versus get_findings directly), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.