Skip to main content
Glama

Persuasion Taxonomy

Explain why marketing is not converting

explain_why_not_converting
Read-onlyIdempotent

Work out why an ad, a landing page, an email or a whole funnel isn't converting. Start from what you can see. Maybe people don't click (a low CTR), or they click and bounce, or they read and don't buy. Maybe they abandon the checkout or the form, the leads never buy, customers buy once and leave, or emails don't get opened or get opened and nobody clicks. Whatever the symptom, you get back the reader questions most likely going unanswered, what to check in the copy first, and the problems copy can't fix that you should rule out, along with techniques to try and the test that would confirm the diagnosis. So use it whenever someone says their marketing "isn't working", "isn't converting" or "isn't selling", or asks why results dropped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoThe kind of copy it is: ad, landing_page, sales_letter for long-form sales copy, email, email_subject, social_post, video_script or headline.
detailsNoAnything you know: the numbers, what changed recently, the offer and the audience.
symptomYesWhat you can see happening. Use low_click_through when people see it and don't click, high_bounce when they click and leave fast, reads_but_no_action when they read and don't convert, starts_but_abandons when they abandon the checkout or form, leads_dont_buy when signups never buy, buys_once_no_return for refunds, churn and no repeat orders, low_open_rate when emails don't get opened, and opens_no_clicks when they get opened but not clicked.
categoryNoThe industry, if you want to compare against what brands in that category usually do. There is enough data for apparel, automotive, b2b_saas, beauty_skincare, business_coaching, consumer_tech, dtc_food_bev, dtc_health, fitness_health, home_goods, info_product, investing, marketing_education, otc_pharma, personal_care, personal_development, supplements, weight_loss. Any other category still works, just without the comparison.
persuasion_modeNoHow hard the copy is allowed to push. Balanced is the default, persuasive and sustainable over time. Equity protects long-term trust, so it rules out fear, hype and hard-sell moves. Aggressive is for short-term direct response and allows fear, threat and hard scarcity. In every mode, the claims stay true.balanced

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description still adds rich value by explaining what comes back: likely unanswered reader questions, what to check in copy first, problems copy cannot fix, techniques to try, and a confirming test. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is long and enumerates symptom cases that largely duplicate the detailed enum descriptions in the schema. It is readable but not tight; several clauses could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the diagnostic purpose, when to use the tool, and the shape of the returned analysis, which is important because there is no output schema. It is nearly complete for invocation. The main gap is lack of routing guidance against the sibling diagnose_marketing_copy.

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 input schema already fully documents the five parameters and their enums. The description restates symptom examples in narrative form but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when structured fields carry the parameter semantics.

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?

The description states a specific diagnostic purpose: working out why an ad, landing page, email or funnel isn't converting. It scopes the tool well against planning or checking siblings. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling diagnose_marketing_copy, so an agent still has to infer which diagnostic tool to choose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear trigger conditions: use whenever someone says marketing 'isn't working', 'isn't converting', 'isn't selling', or asks why results dropped. This is strong when-to-use guidance. It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit alternative sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.