list_single_sendsList all single send campaigns to review email marketing sends, with optional pagination for large result sets.
List all single send campaigns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | Number of results to return | |
| page_token | No | Pagination token from a previous response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.1.0Input schema / properties / page_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Pagination token from a previous response",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, ordering, or how 'all' relates to page_size/page_token, leaving the agent to infer these details from the schema.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the key scope word 'all' is included.
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?
This is a simple list operation with two optional, well-documented parameters and safe annotations, so the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention that results are paginated or describe the response shape, leaving minor but real gaps.
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%, with page_size and page_token already documented in the input schema. The description adds no param-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('all single send campaigns'), which clearly distinguishes it from singular or creator/stats siblings like get_single_send, open_single_send_creator, and open_single_send_stats. An agent can understand exactly what this tool returns.
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 tool's purpose is clear, and 'list all' implies it should be used when a collection of single send campaigns is needed rather than a single campaign. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_single_send, and no exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.