BumbleBox

Write a campaign draft (not sent)

create_campaign_draft

Writes one draft inside an existing campaign, to one recipient (added to the campaign list if new), from the campaign's sender. Nothing is sent: the draft waits for the user to validate the campaign send in BumbleBox.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mission_id": "<mission_id>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_campaign_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes
`body`	Yes	Plain-text body.
`name`	No	Recipient name, for a new prospect.
`subject`	Yes
`mission_id`	Yes	Campaign id, as returned by list_missions.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety basics. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the recipient is added to the campaign list if new, the draft uses the campaign's sender, and nothing is sent until user validation. It omits edge cases like duplicate recipients or failure behavior, so it is not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences with zero waste. The core action and the critical 'not sent' guarantee are front-loaded, followed by the validation workflow.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers draft creation, recipient side effects, sender behavior, and the no-send guarantee. It does not explain the optional recipient name parameter or what happens if the recipient or campaign already exists, which keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 60%, with mission_id and body already documented. The description adds context that mission_id refers to an existing campaign and that a new recipient will be added to the campaign list. However, it does not clarify the 'to' format, subject expectations, or the optional recipient 'name' parameter beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Writes one draft inside an existing campaign.' It clearly distinguishes the action from sending by stating 'Nothing is sent' and explains the recipient scope. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_campaign_draft or list_campaign_drafts, keeping it just below the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool by saying the draft waits for the user to validate the campaign send, which signals it is for preparing rather than sending email. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus update_campaign_draft or list_campaign_drafts, leaving alternatives to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All BumbleBox tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.