Funkel AI

update_campaign_settings

Destructive

Change a campaign's manual review, send window, or sender assignments in the selected product. Read get_campaign first and copy its updated_at as expected_updated_at. Omitted settings remain unchanged. Explicit null sender clears one platform. First call returns an exact approval preview; approved execution saves all changes atomically. It never activates, enrolls, or sends. 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>"
    },
    "name": "update_campaign_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`schedule`	No	Full send window; all fields required when supplied
`campaign_id`	Yes	Owned campaign id from get_campaign (UUID format, e.g. 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000)
`review_mode`	No	Require manual review before outreach
`confirmation_token`	No	One-use approval token; omit on first call
`account_assignments`	No	Only supplied platforms change
`expected_updated_at`	No	Exact updated_at from get_campaign; may be omitted for a server-filled first preview

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: a two-phase approval-preview flow, atomic application of changes on approval, optimistic concurrency via expected_updated_at, and the MCP shortcut that runs immediately without a token. It still does not state permission/auth requirements or whether applied changes can be reverted, which keeps it from 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?

Seven short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact, with the core action front-loaded before the prerequisites and boundaries. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a six-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, the partial-update semantics, the approval/return behavior, and the MCP calling convention. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: omitted settings remain unchanged, an explicit null clears one platform's sender, and the read-get_campaign-then-copy flow for expected_updated_at. These meaning-level details exceed what the property descriptions convey.

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 (Change) and resource (a campaign's settings), then enumerates the exact mutable surface: manual review, send window, sender assignments. It is clearly separable from siblings like update_campaign_workflow or enable_campaign, which act on different aspects of a campaign.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit prerequisite (read get_campaign first and copy updated_at as expected_updated_at), states the omission rule, and draws the boundary against adjacent tools by declaring it never activates, enrolls, or sends. It even routes MCP callers on how to invoke it without a confirmation_token.

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?