warp-mcp

Get campaign MNO status

msg_get_mno_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check per-carrier approval status for a messaging campaign. After creating or resubmitting a campaign, use this to see which MNOs like AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon have approved it.

Instructions

Get per-mobile-carrier (MNO) registration status for one of your campaigns — shows whether AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc. have approved it. Use after msg_create_campaign or msg_resubmit_campaign to track carrier approval. Errors: NOT_FOUND (404), TNIQ_ERROR (502).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "msg_get_mno_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Campaign ID (messaging-backend UUID, as returned by msg_list_campaigns / msg_create_campaign)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context: shows carrier approval status per carrier, and mentions error conditions. No contradictions. Could add more detail about response structure, but overall good.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage timing and errors. Front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient for the information conveyed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, annotations cover safety). Description covers purpose, usage timing, errors. Does not detail return format, but given simplicity, it is mostly complete. Could mention that it returns per-carrier status details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter 'id' with full schema description (100% coverage). Description reinforces source of id ('as returned by msg_list_campaigns / msg_create_campaign'). Adds value beyond schema by tying usage to specific prior actions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it gets per-carrier (MNO) registration status for a campaign, listing specific carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the action and resource, and the context of use (after msg_create_campaign or msg_resubmit_campaign).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use after msg_create_campaign or msg_resubmit_campaign to track carrier approval.' Provides error codes (NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_ERROR). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server