Retrieve every campaign tag with post counts by status, platforms, and next scheduled time so you can inspect a campaign before editing or deleting it.
List campaign bundles — every campaign tag in use, with post counts by status, the platforms involved and the next scheduled time. Use this to see what a campaign contains before editing or deleting it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it discloses the shape of what comes back (per-status counts, platforms, next scheduled time), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or whether zero-post campaigns appear.
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 sentences, zero filler. The resource and returned fields are front-loaded, and the usage cue follows compactly. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the main burden is describing the return value, which the description does well. Minor gaps remain around result size, pagination, and whether campaigns with no posts are included.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing because none exist.
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 ('List') and resource ('campaign bundles'), and enumerates the returned data: campaign tags, post counts by status, platforms, next scheduled time. This makes it distinguishable from list_posts or list_media, though it never names a sibling to contrast with explicitly.
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?
'Use this to see what a campaign contains before editing or deleting it' gives a clear trigger context for the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. versus list_posts when you want individual posts rather than campaign rollups).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.