Fetch a paginated list of organisations in a Kanka campaign by specifying its campaign ID. Use this to browse available organisations or get IDs for subsequent operations.
List organisations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only indicates a list/read operation and does not disclose whether results are paginated, whether organizations are scoped to the required campaignId, what the response shape is, or any side effects.
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 short, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase merely repeats the tool name and offers no structured or decision-relevant content, so it does not earn its place.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. An agent cannot tell that organisations are campaign-scoped, what page controls, or what the response will contain; the schema names the parameters but the description adds no surrounding context.
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 0%, and the description mentions neither campaignId nor page. The only required parameter, campaignId, is not contextualized as the owning campaign, and the optional page parameter's paging semantics are completely undocumented.
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 'List organisations' simply restates the tool name list_organisations without adding any scope, filtering, or campaign context. It is a tautology rather than a genuinely informative purpose statement, and it does not help differentiate the tool from sibling list/get tools beyond the bare resource name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_organization or the other list_* sibling tools. The description does not mention the required campaignId, explain pagination, or state any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.