Freeze and launch or schedule a campaign idempotently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID | |
| scheduled_for | No | Optional ISO-8601 instant with offset | |
| idempotency_key | Yes | Stable launch key | |
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
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?
Lere are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does communicate two useful behavioral traits—constently idempotent and a 'freeze' side effect—but it doesn't explain what freezing means, what happens on retries, or the campaign's state transition.
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 a single short sentence with no filler and the core action is stated before the qualifier. The ambiguous 'freeze' term costs a point against maximum clarity, but overall it is efficient.
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?
Given 100% schema coverage and relatively simple flat parameters, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves important context implicit—what 'freeze' does, whether scheduled_for absent means immediate launch, and what the caller should expect in return.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only loosely echoes scheduled_for and idempotency_key ('schedule', 'idempotently') and does not clarify that providing scheduled_for selects scheduling vs immediate launch.
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 names a specific action ('launch or schedule') on a specific resource ('campaign'), so an agent can identify the tool's main job. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like campaign_create and campaign_update because 'launch' signals a lifecycle action, though the word 'freeze' is ambiguous and no sibling is explicitly contrasted.
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 intended use is implied: call tlis tool when a campaign should be launched or scheduled. However, it provides no explicit guidance about prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tool should be selected instead.
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.