Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lemlist_campaign_start

Start (or resume) a campaign — lemlist begins sending.

THE send gesture at campaign level: from here lemlist walks the sequence for every launched lead, to real people. A no-op if already running.

Read lemlist_campaign(op="statutes", …) first — it names what would block or degrade the launch (missing sender, broken DNS, daily limit) with the same validation the UI runs.

⚠️ In practice this RESUMES a paused campaign: one created through lemlist_campaign(op="create") is already running, and lemlist answers 400 "You can't start campaigns that are already running".

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": "lemlist_campaign_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
campaign_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that real messages go to real people, that validation dependencies (missing sender, broken DNS, daily limit) can block or degrade launch, that a paused campaign is the realistic target, and that a 400 is returned for already-running campaigns. It loses a point for an internal inconsistency — "A no-op if already running" is then contradicted by the 400 error disclosure, leaving the agent unsure whether repeat calls are harmless or rejected.

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?

The definition is front-loaded: the core action and its scope come first, then the prerequisite, then the operational caveat. Every paragraph is relevant, though the bolded warning partially restates and contradicts the earlier no-op claim, which is wasted and slightly confusing signaling rather than decisive concision.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: real-world side effect, prerequisite validation call, and the realistic error/return condition. It does not say what a successful start returns or what happens to leads that were never launched, which leaves a modest gap.

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 83%, so campaign_id and the routing parameters (_org, _group, _run_id, _project, _instance) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions campaign scope in prose but adds no format, id-source, or inheritance detail for campaign_id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The definition states a specific verb and resource ("Start (or resume) a campaign — lemlist begins sending") and explicitly scopes it at campaign level, contrasting with lead-level siblings such as lemlist_launch_lead. An agent can distinguish it from lemlist_campaign(op="create") and the get/list siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It names a concrete prerequisite call (lemlist_campaign(op="statutes") must be read first to surface blockers), explains why (same validation the UI runs), and gives explicit when-not guidance: a campaign created via lemlist_campaign(op="create") is already running, so this call returns 400. That is precisely the routing information an agent needs.

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

All Tulina toolsInspect
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