list_campaignsRetrieve email campaigns newest first, including status and send dates, to review recent sends and page through results.
List email campaigns (newest first) with status and send dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 | |
| starting_after | No | Cursor from a previous response's paging.next.starting_after |
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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by disclosing sort order and the fields returned per item, but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or that paging is cursor-based beyond what the schema states.
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 sentence that front-loads the resource and packs ordering plus returned fields into the remainder. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 two-parameter, zero-required read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (campaigns with status and send dates) and in what order. Only pagination traversal and default page size are left unspecified, which the schema cursor field largely covers.
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 100% and the two parameters (limit, starting_after) are both self-documenting in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount by implying a paged list ordered newest-first, which explains why a cursor parameter exists at all.
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+resource ('List email campaigns') plus useful qualifying detail: result ordering ('newest first') and payload contents ('status and send dates'). This clearly distinguishes it from the singular siblings get_campaign and campaign_report, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the ordering note; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_campaign (single campaign), campaign_report (analytics), or campaign_recipients (per-recipient data). A standard enumeration tool needs little guidance, but nothing routes the agent among the four campaign-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.