list_campaignsFetch call center campaigns with status, dialing method, list and agent counts, and outbound routing details to review or verify configuration.
GET /v1/campaigns (permission callcenter:read). Campaigns with status, dialMethod, number of lists and agents, and outbound routing (outboundLine, lineSelectionMode FIXED|FIRST_FREE, linePool).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 useful context by naming the required permission and the campaign fields returned, but it does not discuss pagination, limits, or response envelope behavior.
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 compact and front-loads the endpoint and permission before listing returned fields. It is telegraphic but efficient; each clause contributes useful information without excessive prose.
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 zero-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, required permission, and key returned campaign fields. It omits pagination or response-shape details, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is largely complete.
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?
This tool has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and the description appropriately does not discuss input arguments, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 states a specific resource and operation: GET /v1/campaigns, listing campaigns. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools such as list_calls or list_lists.
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 includes the permission requirement callcenter:read, but that is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives for choosing list_campaigns over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.