Create a campaign draft. All three must already exist and be usable: a draft cannot be created against an unverified domain or an unpublished template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Campaign name | |
| domain_id | Yes | Active sending domain ID | |
| audience_id | Yes | Audience ID | |
| template_id | Yes | Published marketing template ID | |
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID | |
| template_version | No | Published version to freeze into the campaign. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / template_version / descriptionAdded value: +"Published version to freeze into the campaign."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint (dependencies on verified domain and published template) but omits other critical traits: what the response contains (e.g., campaign ID), error behavior, and any side effects. It is a write operation, but that is inferred from 'Create,' not stated. The single constraint is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite constraint is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not mention the optional template_version parameter or what the success response looks like. An agent would not know whether the draft ID is returned or how to reference it later. Given no annotations and no output schema, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond the schema; it reiterates that domain and template must be active/published, which the schema already states. Thus it meets the baseline but adds minimal extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a campaign draft') and specifies the resource type. It differentiates from siblings like campaign_launch and campaign_update by emphasizing 'draft.' The prerequisite mention further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies when to use it (to create a draft) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as campaign_launch or campaign_update. It provides context that the draft cannot be created against unverified domains or unpublished templates, which is a usage constraint, but it does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.