Outcomet

Create Campaign Interaction

campaign_interaction_create

Logs an outreach touchpoint or interaction (viewed, invited, messaged, commented, liked, replied, booked_call, email, other) for a campaign member or contact.

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": {
      "interactionType": "<interactionType>"
    },
    "name": "campaign_interaction_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	URL of the post or interaction. Required for outbound commented interactions.
`body`	No	Optional interaction content / notes / snippet.
`source`	No	Origin source (defaults to agent).
`memberId`	No	Optional campaign member UUID. When provided, automatically resolves campaignId, personId, companyId, and contactAccountId.
`personId`	No	Optional contact person UUID.
`companyId`	No	Optional company UUID.
`direction`	No	Direction of interaction (default outbound).
`campaignId`	No	Stable campaign UUID. If memberId is provided, campaignId is automatically resolved.
`occurredAt`	No	ISO timestamp of when the interaction occurred (defaults to now).
`interactionType`	Yes	Type of interaction.
`contactAccountId`	No	Optional contact account UUID (e.g. LinkedIn profile).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`interaction`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and critically that idempotentHint=false, meaning repeated calls create duplicates; the description never mentions this duplicate risk or any retry guidance. It also omits auth/permission needs and what side effects logging triggers (e.g., campaign activity counters), adding essentially nothing behavioral beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The long enumeration of interaction types partially duplicates the schema enum, which is mild redundancy, but the sentence remains tight and scannable.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 11 parameters, an output schema present, and full schema descriptions, the definition is adequate but thin: it doesn't clarify the memberId-vs-personId-vs-companyId resolution path, nor the duplicate-creation consequence of a non-idempotent write. For a create tool in a dense sibling set, that guidance would be the highest-value addition.

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 100%, so every parameter including memberId auto-resolution, source default, direction default, and occurredAt default is already documented. The description's parenthetical list of interaction types only restates the interactionType enum and adds no new semantics about the identifier parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('logs') and resource ('outreach touchpoint or interaction'), lists the valid interaction types, and names the target entities (campaign member or contact). An agent can tell this creates an interaction record rather than a member or campaign. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as feedback_create, which also records an event.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'logs an outreach touchpoint' suggests calling it when activity happens, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings like campaign_interaction_list or feedback_create for feedback-type events. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer memberId or personId/companyId.

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

All Outcomet 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?