Paginate through SMS and email drip campaigns, retrieving enrollment counts and provider details for campaign oversight.
List SMS/email drip campaigns with enrollment counts and provider info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (default 25, max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the results (enrollment counts, provider info), implying a read-only operation, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and return content come first. Slightly terse given the lack of operational guidance, but every word 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?
For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what it returns at a high level. Only minor gaps remain: it doesn't state whether filters exist or how paging interacts with the result set.
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 100%, with page and per_page both documented including defaults and max. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies; it neither compensates nor misleads.
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 SMS/email drip campaigns') and adds the return content (enrollment counts, provider info), which separates it from conduyt_get_drip_campaign (single) and conduyt_list_drip_enrollments (enrollments, not campaigns). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 list-vs-get distinction is implied by the verb, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead for…' guidance, and no mention of related tools like conduyt_list_drip_enrollments or conduyt_get_drip_campaign.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.