list_listsFetches call lists with their IDs, numbers, names, volumes, and outbound line assignments so you can review list configuration before managing leads or campaigns.
GET /v1/lists (permission callcenter:read). Returns each list's id, number, name, volume and own outbound line (outboundLine: { id, name } or null = follows the campaign).
| 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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the auth scope (callcenter:read) and clarifies the ambiguous outboundLine case (null = falls back to the campaign), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention ordering, volume limits, or pagination.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with endpoint and permission, followed by the return shape. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing returned fields and the nullable outboundLine. It is slightly incomplete on pagination/result-size behavior for an open-world list endpoint, but everything needed to invoke it (no params) is present.
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?
There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its space on response field semantics, which is the useful substitute here.
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 and resource ('GET /v1/lists') plus the required permission scope, and enumerates exactly what each item contains (id, number, name, volume, outboundLine). The resource is unambiguous against siblings like list_campaigns or list_calls.
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 permission hint ('callcenter:read') implies a precondition, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over sibling list tools or when not to call it. Usage is inferred from the resource name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.