Retrieve campaign details with optional status filter to view drafts, active, paused, or completed campaigns.
List campaigns (id, name, status, created).
Optional status filter (int): 0=draft, 1=active, 2=paused, 3=completed,
4=running_subsequences, -1=accounts_unhealthy, -2=bounce_protect,
-99=account_suspended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explains the status filter semantics and lists returned fields, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, limit behavior, or explicitly confirm the read-only nature of the operation.
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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The status enum mapping is compact and directly 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?
For a simple list tool, the description gives the essential return fields and the status filter values. It lacks limit/pagination details, but the schema provides the limit default, and no output schema exists to require extra explanation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents the status parameter with all integer codes, but the limit parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics to the schema default and name.
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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'List campaigns', and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, status, created). It is clearly a listing operation versus the singular get_campaign, but it does not explicitly call out that differentiation.
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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need a list of campaigns. It gives the optional status filter values, but it does not state when to prefer alternatives like get_campaign or get_campaign_analytics, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.