Retrieve reusable SMS contact lists to manage bulk and scheduled campaign audiences. Filter by name, active status, or pagination.
List reusable SMS contact lists (bulk/schedule audiences).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size | |
| offset | No | Offset | |
| search | No | Search by name/description | |
| active_only | No | Return active lists only |
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 must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and adds useful context that the lists are reusable SMS bulk/schedule audiences. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default filters, response format, or whether inactive lists appear by default, but for a simple list operation the core behavior is sufficiently transparent.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler or redundant information. The action and differentiating context are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.
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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and fully documented optional parameters, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps include the lack of explicit sibling alternatives and no statement about return format, but these are not critical given the minimalist nature of the operation and the complete schema coverage.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the 'bulk/schedule audiences' context, leaving limit, offset, search, and active_only semantics entirely to the schema.
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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'reusable SMS contact lists,' further scoping them as 'bulk/schedule audiences.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools such as list_contacts or list_opt_out_lists by emphasizing the reusable, bulk/schedule nature of these lists.
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 parenthetical '(bulk/schedule audiences)' implies this tool is for retrieving saved SMS audience lists used in bulk or scheduled sends, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternative sibling tools, such as list_contacts for individual contacts or list_opt_out_lists for opt-out lists, so the agent must infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.