campaigns_searchSearch and filter campaigns by status and optional query text to locate specific campaigns for review or management.
List campaigns. Filter by status (draft, scheduled, running, paused, cancelled, finished) and optional query text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| per_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive read semantics, so the description carries little extra burden — but it adds nothing behavioral at all: no result ordering, no default result set when status is omitted, no statement about what happens with no matches.
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 short sentences, leading with the core action. Listing all six enum values is slightly redundant with the schema but arguably helps the agent pick a valid status, so the verbosity is defensible.
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 search tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves pagination, default page size, search matching behavior, and result ordering entirely unaddressed — an agent cannot predict what it will get back or how to page.
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 only restates the status enum and mentions 'query text' loosely, leaving both pagination parameters (page, per_page) completely undocumented in either schema or description.
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 ('List campaigns') and names the two filter axes, which cleanly separates it from campaign_get and campaign_create. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of full 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?
Usage is only implied by the word 'List' plus filters; there is no statement of when to choose this over campaign_get or listmonk_dashboard_counts, and no note on defaults or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.