Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Emailchaser

by com.emailchaser
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Replace campaign sequence

replace_campaign_sequence
DestructiveIdempotent

Replaces a campaign's WHOLE sequence with the steps provided. This is not a partial edit: steps you leave out are removed, so send the full sequence every time. Sending the same payload twice leaves the same result, so a retry cannot duplicate steps. Editing a running campaign is allowed and changes future sends only; already-sent emails are untouched.

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>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "replace_campaign_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe numeric campaign ID (from list_campaigns)
stepsYesThe full sequence, first email first. The first step must have delayDays 0
signatureNoOptional signature appended to every step

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 annotations: it spells out the destructive consequence (omitted steps are removed), restates idempotency in operational terms (a retry cannot duplicate steps), and clarifies mutation scope on a live campaign (future sends only, already-sent emails untouched). Those are exactly the facts an agent needs before committing an irreversible write and none are derivable from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 sentences, each carrying a distinct and load-bearing fact (full replacement, no partial edits, idempotent retries, live-campaign behavior), with the destructive warning front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky dimensions well (data loss, retry safety, effect on in-flight sends). It omits what is returned on success and any permission or campaign-state prerequisites, which leaves a small but real gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains delayDays semantics, merge tags, variant labeling, and the first-step-zero rule in detail, so the description adds only the reinforcement that `steps` must be the complete sequence. Baseline 3 is appropriate here — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Replaces a campaign's WHOLE sequence') and immediately qualifies the scope with 'with the steps provided', which makes clear this is a full-write operation rather than a read like get_campaign_sequence. The capitalized WHOLE preempts the most likely agent misread.

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?

Explicitly frames the when-not ('This is not a partial edit') and the required invocation pattern ('send the full sequence every time'), plus the sanctioned case of editing a running campaign. It stops short of naming get_campaign_sequence as the read-first alternative, so the routing instruction is implied rather than stated.

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