ictdialer_campaign_statusLive status of a campaign by id (for example running or stopped). Poll this while a campaign runs.
Live status of a campaign by id (for example running or stopped). Poll this while a campaign runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | The campaign id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / campaign_id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / campaign_id / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the polling recommendation and the nature of the returned value (live status such as running/stopped), which is useful context but no detail on response shape or freshness/latency.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero filler. Every clause contributes.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies the key operational detail (polling) and the kind of value to expect. A brief note on what else the status response contains would close the remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100% for the single campaign_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by id' without adding format or validity notes; baseline 3 applies.
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 pair ('Live status of a campaign by id') and names example values (running, stopped). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like ictdialer_campaign_summary or ictdialer_campaign_result, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 sentence 'Poll this while a campaign runs' gives a real usage cue that implies this is for live monitoring. However, it never says when to prefer it over ictdialer_campaign_summary or ictdialer_campaign_result, nor any when-not condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.