list_dispositionsRetrieves outcome codes agents set on calls, with optional campaign filtering to include campaign-specific dispositions.
GET /v1/dispositions (permission callcenter:read). Outcome codes agents set on calls: [{ id, code, name, category, isSystem }]. Optional campaignId adds campaign-specific dispositions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly and openWorld, yet the description adds the required permission scope (callcenter:read) and the exact response field shape, both of which are genuinely beyond structured metadata. It does not discuss pagination or result size, keeping it out of 5 territory.
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?
Dense and front-loaded: endpoint, permission, resource meaning, payload fields and optional-parameter effect in three short fragments with no filler. The inline URL syntax is slightly technical but maps directly to API docs.
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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return field set and the auth requirement, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Missing only scale/pagination behavior.
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% for the single campaignId parameter, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, explaining that the parameter scopes results to campaign-specific dispositions. It omits format details (ID shape/examples), so not a 5.
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: GET /v1/dispositions returns 'Outcome codes agents set on calls', which is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like list_calls or list_campaigns. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, so it stops short of a 5.
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 clause 'Optional campaignId adds campaign-specific dispositions' implies when to supply the parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the list_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.