Retrieve bulk-call campaigns in pages, with optional status filtering, to monitor completed calls and manage large lists.
List bulk-call campaigns with pagination and optional status filter. (Tags: Bulk calls)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageno | No | Page number for pagination. | |
| status | No | Filter by status (e.g. completed). | |
| pagesize | No | Items per page (max 150). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the read-only nature transparent. The description adds behavioral details about pagination and status filtering, which go beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose the response format, any authorization requirements, or potential rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, the added context is adequate.
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 concise and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. The parenthetical '(Tags: Bulk calls)' is somewhat redundant with the tool name but does not significantly clutter the description. Overall, every sentence contributes to the core purpose without excessive verbosity.
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 simple read-only list operation with three well-documented optional parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, pagination, and filter capability. It does not detail the return structure, but the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable, especially with the readOnlyHint annotation.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including types, defaults, and constraints. The description's mention of 'optional status filter' merely echoes the schema's status parameter description without adding new meaning, so it does not surpass the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'bulk-call campaigns', further specifying pagination and optional status filtering. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like getBulkCall (single resource) and createBulkCall (creation), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tool names imply a distinction (e.g., getBulkCall for a single campaign), the description itself offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, nor does it mention any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.