Retrieve cold email campaigns newest first and filter by status to see lead counts by progress.
List campaigns Newest first, with lead counts by progress.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_campaigns"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 full burden: it does disclose two real behavioral traits, sort order (newest first) and that each row is enriched with lead counts by progress. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, auth needs, or how the status filter affects results.
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?
One short sentence with the key information front-loaded and zero filler. The phrasing 'List campaigns Newest first' is slightly clipped/awkward but costs nothing in clarity.
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 this is thin: no output schema exists, no annotations exist, and the only parameter's filtering behavior is left unexplained. An agent knows what it will get back vaguely (campaigns with lead counts) but not how to scope the call or what the result envelope looks like.
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% and the single parameter (status, an array of draft/running/paused/completed) is never mentioned in the description. The enum values give partial self-documentation, but the description does not explain filtering semantics or whether status is an OR/AND filter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource ('List campaigns') and adds scope detail: newest-first ordering and lead counts by progress. It is clearly distinguishable from get_campaign (singular) for an agent, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer get_campaign or get_campaign_stats, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.