Funkel AI

enable_campaign

Destructive

Enable (resume) a paused or draft campaign. The campaign engine starts scheduling actions per the campaign's workflow. Two-phase: first call returns a confirmation token + preview; the user reviews and confirms; second call (with confirmation_token) commits. Activation pre-conditions (workflow steps, connected accounts) are validated by the underlying campaign service — the tool surfaces any failure as a structured error. Over MCP: call this tool once, without confirmation_token. It runs right away and returns the result.

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "campaign_name": "<campaign_name>",
      "app_name": "<app_name>"
    },
    "name": "enable_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app_name`	Yes	App name (used in the confirm preview)
`campaign_id`	Yes	Campaign id (from a prior list_campaigns) (UUID format, e.g. 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000)
`campaign_name`	Yes	Campaign name (used in the confirm preview)
`confirmation_token`	No	Phase-2 token (omit on phase-1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the side effect (engine begins scheduling per workflow), the two-phase confirmation contract, pre-condition validation (workflow steps, connected accounts), and that failures surface as structured errors. This is exactly the mutation context the annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose and side effect, then flows into the two-phase mechanics and the MCP-specific note. It is slightly repetitive around the confirm/preview step, but the length is defensible given the two-phase complexity.

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?

With no output schema and four parameters, the description covers phase-1 return (confirmation token + preview), the commit path, validation failures, and MCP behavior. The only thin spot is the vague 'returns the result' for the MCP one-shot path; otherwise it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real usage semantics for confirmation_token — omit it on phase-1, supply it on phase-2 to commit — which the schema alone does not explain, plus notes app_name and campaign_name feed the confirm preview.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb plus resource ('enable (resume) a paused or draft campaign') and immediately clarifies the state transition and that the engine starts scheduling actions. An agent can distinguish this from pause_campaign and create_campaign_draft without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly identifies the applicable campaign state (paused or draft) and walks through the confirm-then-commit flow, including the MCP override (call once without confirmation_token). It never names an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Funkel AI 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.

Resources

Need Help?