Render every campaign step and variant for a single lead, resolving spintax to show the exact emails they will receive. Defaults to the campaign's first lead.
Render every step and variant for one lead Shows the emails exactly as that lead would get them, with spintax resolved the way it will be for them. Defaults to the first lead in the campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| leadId | 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 and does disclose meaningful behavior: it renders rather than mutates, spintax is resolved the way it will be for that lead, and the lead defaults to the first in the campaign. It does not state permission requirements or describe the response shape, but the read-only preview nature is clear from 'render' and 'shows'.
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?
Short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds information; the default-lead rule is placed at the end where it belongs. The only flaw is a missing sentence break after 'one lead', which makes the first two clauses run together.
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 two-parameter preview tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output nature, and default behavior adequately. The remaining gap is the unexplained `id` parameter and the absence of any note on what the rendered preview contains structurally.
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 explains leadId's semantics (optional, defaults to the first lead in the campaign) but never says what the required `id` parameter refers to (presumably the campaign), leaving one of two parameters undocumented.
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 (render/show) and resource (every step and variant for one lead), and clarifies the rendering semantics (spintax resolved as the lead would see it). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_campaign or set_sequence, though it never names an alternative 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?
The description implies a preview/inspection use case and explains the default-lead fallback when leadId is omitted, which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance against siblings such as get_campaign or get_campaign_analytics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.