Dunefox Voice MCP Server

List campaigns

list_campaigns

Read-only

Lists outbound campaigns in a Dunefox workspace to help you review active calling initiatives and their status. Requires the campaigns scope.

Instructions

This workspace's outbound campaigns. Needs the "campaigns" scope.

Tool call template

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": "list_campaigns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context not present in annotations: the required 'campaigns' scope, which is an auth prerequisite an agent otherwise could not anticipate. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether all campaigns are returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses, zero filler, and the resource is front-loaded ahead of the auth requirement. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified for a list operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description covers the resource and the auth requirement, which is close to sufficient. It omits any statement about return volume or ordering, which is the main remaining gap an agent would care about.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims conflict with the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ('this workspace's outbound campaigns') and the name supplies the verb 'list', but the description itself never states that it returns a collection. It is a noun phrase rather than a stated action, so the agent must borrow meaning from 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_campaign for a single record or get_campaign_report for analytics. The only routing information is the required scope, not a selection criterion between siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.