Emailchaser

Update campaign

update_campaign

Idempotent

Updates campaign properties such as name, emoji, timezone, sending limits, the minimum email account health score and deliverability settings. Only the provided fields are changed. A new minimum health score re-plans a running campaign at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The numeric campaign ID (from list_campaigns)
`name`	No	New campaign name
`emoji`	No	Campaign emoji
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone, e.g. America/New_York
`dailyLimit`	No	Cap on the total emails (initial + follow-ups) the campaign may schedule per calendar day in its timezone. Omit for no campaign-level cap; per-mailbox limits still apply
`isEnabledLlm`	No	Enable AI (LLM) features for this campaign
`minimumHealthScore`	No	Minimum email account health score for this campaign, 1-100 (see healthScore in list_sender_emails). An account below it, or with no score yet, sends nothing in this campaign, first emails and follow-ups alike, until its score is back at or above it; its conversations wait for it and never move to another account. 0 means no minimum; omit it to leave the setting as it is
`allowNonBusinessEmails`	No	Allow sending to free mailbox providers (gmail.com, etc.)
`isEnabledEmailVerifier`	No	Verify lead emails before sending
`ignoreOutOfOfficeReplies`	No	Do not stop follow-ups on out-of-office replies
`maximumTimeBetweenEmails`	No	Maximum gap between two sends, in minutes
`minimumTimeBetweenEmails`	No	Minimum gap between two sends, in minutes
`isEnabledCatchallValidated`	No	Send to catch-all validated addresses
`isEnabledStopFollowUpsOnReply`	No	Stop follow-ups to a lead once they reply
`isEnabledIgnoreHardBouncedLeads`	No	Skip leads that previously hard-bounced
`isEnabledSkipLeadIfAlreadyExists`	No	Skip leads that already exist in the workspace
`maximumSendingLimitPerSenderEmail`	No	Daily sending limit per sender email account
`isEnabledStopFollowUpsForSameCompany`	No	Company reply stop: once a lead replies (out-of-office and other automatic replies don't count), stop emailing the other leads at the same company in this campaign. Subdomains count as the same company; personal addresses like @gmail.com never do. On by default
`isEnabledStopFollowUpsAcrossCampaigns`	No	Stop follow-ups to a lead in this campaign once they reply in any campaign
`isEnabledIgnoreLeadsWhoAlreadyResponded`	No	Skip leads who already responded in another campaign
`maximumSendingLimitPerSenderEmailVariation`	No	Random daily variation applied to the sending limit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / minimumHealthScore

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Minimum email account health score for this campaign, 1-100 (see healthScore in list_sender_emails). An account below it, or with no score yet, sends nothing in this campaign, first emails and follow-ups alike, until its score is back at or above it; its conversations wait for it and never move to another account. 0 means no minimum; omit it to leave the setting as it is",
+  "maximum": 100,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / isEnabledStopFollowUpsForSameCompany / description

Previous value: -"Stop follow-ups to a company once someone there replies"New value: +"Company reply stop: once a lead replies (out-of-office and other automatic replies don't count), stop emailing the other leads at the same company in this campaign. Subdomains count as the same company; personal addresses like @gmail.com never do. On by default"

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: only supplied fields mutate (partial-update semantics), and setting a new minimum health score immediately re-plans a running campaign. That side-effect disclosure is the kind of thing an agent cannot infer from structured data alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core mutation semantics are front-loaded before the field list and side-effect note. Slightly better routing information could have been added without cost, but nothing here is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 21-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential patch semantics and the one notable side effect, and annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of explaining what the tool returns or how it relates to the adjacent update_campaign_schedule tool, leaving a real gap in routing completeness.

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 schema already documents all 21 parameters in detail (including the minimumHealthScore semantics that the description also gestures at). The description's field enumeration adds little beyond what the schema says; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Updates campaign properties') and enumerates the categories of fields affected (name, emoji, timezone, sending limits, health score, deliverability settings). It is clearly distinguishable from create_campaign, delete_campaign, and get_campaign, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling update_campaign_schedule, whose territory (timezone, sending limits) it appears to overlap.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The patch semantics are made explicit ('Only the provided fields are changed'), which is useful context for when to use this over a full-replace operation, and the re-planning note hints at when the tool has side effects. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer update_campaign vs update_campaign_schedule, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All Emailchaser tools Inspect

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

Need Help?