List outbound calling campaigns to view status, progress, agent, and audience size. Filter by status or agent to find specific campaigns.
List outbound calling campaigns for your organization. Shows campaign status, progress, agent used, and audience size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 50) | |
| status | No | Filter by campaign status | |
| agent_name | No | Filter by agent name (partial match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-only listing operation scoped to the organization, which is non-trivial. However, it discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, how 'progress' is defined, or result boundaries beyond what the schema's limit parameter already implies.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and the output-field detail in sentence two earns its place by telling the agent what to expect in the results. Nothing extraneous.
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 simple list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. Gaps remain: no output schema exists so the field list is the only return-shape signal and it is partial, no pagination behavior is described, and there is no guidance distinguishing this from get_call_logs — a genuine ambiguity risk among the siblings.
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% — limit, status, and agent_name each have descriptive text in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; 'agent used' refers to an output field, not the agent_name filter semantics.
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: 'List outbound calling campaigns for your organization.' The second sentence clarifies what fields are returned (status, progress, agent used, audience size), which is useful. It doesn't explicitly name or differentiate against siblings like get_call_logs, but the resource entity (campaigns vs. calls) is inherently distinct.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is for listing campaigns, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like get_call_logs for call-level detail. Given several listing tools among siblings, explicit routing would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.