Retrieve pending alerts for campaign anomalies, lead opportunities, content gaps, and SEO drops from your Maasy AI Marketing Copilot. Input project UUID and optional limit.
Pending copilot alerts: campaign anomalies, lead opportunities, content gaps, SEO drops.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Brand UUID | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'pending' as a filter and lists alert categories, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the response structure looks like, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a data-retrieval tool.
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?
The description is a single, information-dense phrase that front-loads the core purpose ('Pending copilot alerts') and then provides the alert categories. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description gives a minimal but usable sense of what the tool returns. However, it lacks usage context, parameter details, and any indication of the output format, leaving the agent to infer too much.
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 description adds no information about the 'limit' or 'project_id' parameters beyond the schema. While project_id has a schema description ('Brand UUID'), limit is only given a default, and the tool description does not explain how these parameters affect results.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving pending copilot alerts and lists the types of alerts (campaign anomalies, lead opportunities, content gaps, SEO drops). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are alert-specific.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as maasy_get_daily_summary or maasy_get_content_pipeline. The description merely implies usage when alerts are needed but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.