AWSYS Links

Create UTM Template

create_utm_template

Create a new UTM parameter template. The template name must be unique per account. Up to 20 templates are allowed. Any UTM field left blank is simply omitted when applied.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_utm_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Display name for the template (max 40 chars)
`term`	No	utm_term value (paid keyword)
`medium`	No	utm_medium value (e.g. "email")
`source`	No	utm_source value (e.g. "newsletter")
`content`	No	utm_content value (ad variant identifier)
`campaign`	No	utm_campaign value (e.g. "launch2026")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false; the description adds real substance on top of these with the per-account name uniqueness rule, the 20-template quota, and the behavior of blank UTM fields when applied. It does not say what error surface to expect on a duplicate name or quota breach, keeping it below a 5, but the added context is genuinely non-redundant.

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?

Three short sentences, no repetition, and the core action is stated first followed by the two constraints that most affect a caller. Every sentence carries information.

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 creation tool with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the important unknowns: uniqueness, quota and blank-field handling. Missing only the failure mode for a duplicate name or exceeded quota, which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 the meaning of name, term, medium, source, content and campaign is already fully documented and the description provides no per-field syntax beyond that. The one contribution is 'Any UTM field left blank is simply omitted when applied,' which clarifies the semantics of the optional fields; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Create a new UTM parameter template" gives a specific verb (create) and resource, which is enough to distinguish it from the delete_utm_template and list_utm_templates siblings. It is close to a restatement of the title, but adds 'parameter' and clarifies that a new record is being produced.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, though the absence of any update_utm_template sibling makes the role implied. The description does surface preconditions (unique name per account, 20-template cap) that an agent needs before calling, which is useful but is constraint information rather than routing guidance.

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

All AWSYS Links 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?