List broadcast campaigns with optional status and pagination filters.
List broadcast campaigns.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "whatify_list_campaigns"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| per_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list', implying read-only, but provides no details on pagination, default behavior, rate limits, or what happens with the status parameter.
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 very concise (one sentence), but it lacks substance. Conciseness is good, but here it under-specifies the tool's behavior, making it less useful.
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?
Given the two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the list returns, how pagination works, or how status filtering behaves. A more complete description would include this context.
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?
Two parameters (status, per_page) have no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain their meaning or usage. The description fails to add any value beyond the types.
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 'List broadcast campaigns' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (broadcast campaigns). While it is specific, it does not differentiate itself from sibling list tools beyond the resource name, but the resource name is distinct enough.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whatify_list_contacts or whatify_list_conversations. It lacks context on filtering, prerequisites, or expected use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.