Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Emailchaser

by com.emailchaser
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Attach sender emails to campaign

attach_campaign_sender_emails
Idempotent

Attaches connected sender email accounts to a campaign. A campaign only sends through the senders attached to it, so this call decides which mailboxes it uses. Idempotent: already-attached senders are left untouched and only missing ones are added. The call is refused whole when any requested sender is not a connected sender email in the workspace. Attaching to a running campaign reschedules it so the new senders are picked up.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "senderEmailIds": "<senderEmailIds>"
    },
    "name": "attach_campaign_sender_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe numeric campaign ID (from list_campaigns)
senderEmailIdsYesSender email IDs to attach (from list_sender_emails). Every ID must be a connected sender email in the workspace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing three behaviors the agent could not infer: idempotent merge semantics (only missing senders are added), all-or-nothing refusal when any sender is invalid, and the side effect that attaching to a running campaign reschedules it. The idempotency statement also corroborates idempotentHint=true rather than contradicting it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then idempotency, then failure mode, then the side effect. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the title or schema.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, atomicity, idempotency, and rescheduling. It leaves the return value and any sender-capacity or ordering behavior unstated, but annotations already carry the safety profile, so the gaps are minor.

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 both parameters are already documented, including their source tools (list_campaigns, list_sender_emails) and the connected-sender constraint. The description restates that constraint but adds no format, ordering, or batch-limit details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (attach sender emails to a campaign) and immediately explains the effect: the attached senders decide which mailboxes the campaign sends through. That framing distinguishes it cleanly from the opposite-direction sibling detach_campaign_sender_email and from list_sender_emails, which merely supplies IDs.

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?

Gives clear context for when the call is needed (a campaign only sends through attached senders) and a hard precondition (every requested ID must be a connected sender email in the workspace). It does not name an alternative or an explicit when-not case, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

All Emailchaser toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources