Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Emailchaser

by com.emailchaser
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update campaign schedule

update_campaign_schedule
Idempotent

Updates a campaign's sending schedule: timezone, sending days, daily time window and frequency. everySchedule can be left out: the campaign keeps its current frequency, or 5 minutes (the app's default) if it has none.

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>",
      "timezone": "<timezone>"
    },
    "name": "update_campaign_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe numeric campaign ID (from list_campaigns)
sendAtNoExact send time for single-lead scheduled campaigns (ISO 8601)
timezoneYesIANA timezone the schedule runs in, e.g. Europe/London
endScheduleNoDaily sending window end time, e.g. 17:00
daysScheduleNoDays of the week to send on, e.g. ["monday", "tuesday", "wednesday"]
everyScheduleNoSending frequency: minutes between sending slots inside the daily window. Optional: when left out, the campaign's current value is kept, or 5 (the app's default) if it has none
startScheduleNoDaily sending window start time, e.g. 09:00
maximumTimeBetweenEmailsNoMaximum gap between two sends, in minutes
minimumTimeBetweenEmailsNoMinimum gap between two sends, in minutes

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / everySchedule / description
      Previous value: -"Sending frequency interval"New value: +"Sending frequency: minutes between sending slots inside the daily window. Optional: when left out, the campaign's current value is kept, or 5 (the app's default) if it has none"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely beyond-schema behavior — that an omitted everySchedule retains the campaign's current frequency and falls back to the app default of 5 minutes — but says nothing about whether omitted optional fields (startSchedule, daysSchedule, etc.) are likewise preserved or cleared, which is the key ambiguity for a partial-update mutation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool changes, then the single non-obvious default rule. No preamble, no padding, no restatement of the title.

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 nine-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the primary fields and one tricky default but leaves the partial-update contract unstated for the other seven optional fields, and gives no hint about the response. Adequate but with a real gap for an update tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 nine parameters including the everySchedule fallback, meaning baseline would be 3. The description does reinforce the fallback semantics in the tool-level text, slightly reducing the chance an agent omits the field expecting a reset, but it adds essentially nothing new beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates a campaign's sending schedule') and enumerates the schedule facets covered: timezone, sending days, daily time window, frequency. That is enough to separate it from the broad 'update_campaign' sibling conceptually, though the description never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list — an agent can infer this is the tool for schedule-only changes rather than general campaign edits — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. update_campaign guidance and no stated preconditions (e.g. campaign must exist, paused state requirements).

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