pause_campaignStop a phone campaign immediately by halting new calls and ending any calls currently in progress. Use to prevent further call placement and terminate active calls.
Stop placing new calls and hang up any the campaign still has in flight.
Requires scope campaigns:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id, e.g. "6a96a3ead6e886d42462dd3e". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important side effects beyond the annotations: it explicitly says the tool will hang up in-flight calls and stop placing new ones. It also states the required scope. Annotations already capture idempotency and non-read-only status, so the description adds useful behavioral context without contradiction.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the permission requirement is stated separately and cleanly.
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 single-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, side effects, and authorization. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap because the tool's effect is clearly described and no return value is needed to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, and the input schema already documents the single `id` parameter with a concrete example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable when the schema already carries the full meaning.
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 clear, specific action: stop placing new calls and hang up any calls the campaign has in flight. This distinguishes pause_campaign from sibling actions like start_campaign or delete_campaign through its behavior rather than merely restating the tool name.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_campaign or delete_campaign. The only context provided is the required scope `campaigns:write`, which is a prerequisite, not a usage recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.