Create a campaign draft.
| 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a draft is created, providing minimal side-effect context. It does not mention permissions, whether the draft is immediately available, whether it can be edited or launched afterward, or what response is returned.
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?
The description is extremely concise with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, it may be too terse given the complexity of the operation and the absence of annotations.
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?
This is a creation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about the draft lifecycle, validation behavior, or expected result. It only says 'Create a campaign draft' and leaves important operational details unstated.
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 description coverage is 83%, so the input schema already documents five of six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema covers most semantics. The optional template_version parameter lacks a description, yet the schema provides a minimum constraint.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('a campaign draft'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like campaign_launch, campaign_update, and campaign_get. The word 'draft' conveys that this creates an unsent campaign rather than launching one. It is concise but could be slightly clearer about what a draft entails.
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?
The description implies the tool is used to create a campaign draft, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over campaign_launch or campaign_update, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so an agent must infer usage from sibling names and the word 'draft'.
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.
Most resource CRUD sets are distinct, but the server duplicates entire CRM activity/task tool groups under crm_* and platform_crm_* with identical descriptions, so an agent cannot tell which set to call. Additional overlap exists around identity/context (me, context, platform_context, organizations) and exports (contacts_export vs data_export_create).
Names generally follow commsharbor_<resource>_<action>, but list endpoints are split between plural nouns (audiences, webhooks) and *_list suffixes (crm_activities_list), and some tools use bare nouns or verbs (health, me, context, logout). The mixed conventions are readable but not fully predictable.
141 tools is far beyond a coherent surface for an agent to select from. Even with a broad CRM/email platform scope, the set should be consolidated, namespaced more aggressively, or split into multiple focused servers.
Coverage is broad: campaigns, templates, audiences, CRM objects, imports/exports, auth, billing, domains, webhooks, and suppressions all have lifecycle tools. Gaps like suppression deletion, webhook update, and a non-platform leads group are minor relative to the overall surface, though the duplicate platform sets muddy completeness.