Edit, pause, resume or cancel a campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Campaign name | |
| status | No | paused, running or canceled | |
| domain_id | No | Active sending domain ID | |
| audience_id | No | Audience ID | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID | |
| template_id | No | 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 correctly indicates a state-changing operation, but it does not mention consequences such as whether cancel is irreversible, whether pause/resume has restrictions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.
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 eight words, front-loaded with action verbs, and contains no filler. It is compact and easy to scan quickly, which is exactly what conciseness requires, even though it lacks some contextual depth.
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?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is not enough operational context. The description does not explain which fields can be updated together, how status transitions work, or that campaign_id and organization_id are identifiers while other fields are optional. The schema gives field names but not the behavioral context an agent needs to use the tool correctly.
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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters adequately. The description adds a little meaning by implicitly linking pause/resume/cancel to the status field, but it does not clarify optionality, field combinations, or template_version behavior. The high schema coverage keeps this at baseline 3.
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 the campaign resource and a set of concrete actions: edit, pause, resume, or cancel. This is reasonably specific and distinguishes the tool from campaign_create, campaign_get, and campaign_launch, but 'edit' is generic and the description does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like campaign_launch or campaign_create. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and verbs, with no explanation of boundary cases such as whether setting status to 'running' is the same as launching a campaign.
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.