Moltline Outbound Engine

Utm Builder

utm_builder

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a UTM-tagged URL for campaign tracking. FREE.

Typical input {"url": "https://example.com/pricing", "source": "newsletter", "medium": "email", "campaign": "spring-launch"} returns {"tagged_url": "https://example.com/pricing?utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=spring-launch"}.

Use to build one tagged tracking URL. Not for analyzing campaign results and not for anything that belongs in the message body (audit_copy). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "url must start with http(s)://"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Destination URL; must start with http:// or https://.
`term`	No	Optional utm_term value for paid keywords.
`medium`	Yes	utm_medium value — the channel, e.g. "email" or "cpc".
`source`	Yes	utm_source value — where the traffic comes from, e.g. "newsletter".
`content`	No	Optional utm_content value for A/B variants.
`campaign`	Yes	utm_campaign value — the campaign name, e.g. "spring-launch".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the error behavior ('never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}'), confirms idempotency and safety to retry, and mentions 'FREE'. This adds meaningful context about operation guarantees.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, cost, example, usage boundaries, and error handling. The structure is well-organized and free of fluff; the example is compact and illustrative.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple tool shape, the description covers purpose, example input/output, error behavior, and exclusions. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly, especially with the output schema available externally.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete typical input/output example showing how parameters map to the tagged_url, and an error example clarifying url validation. This enriches parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description states 'Build a UTM-tagged URL for campaign tracking' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding 'analyzing campaign results' and 'anything that belongs in the message body (audit_copy)'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Use to build one tagged tracking URL') and explicit exclusions with alternative context, naming audit_copy as the sibling for message body content. This prevents misuse.

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

All Moltline Outbound Engine tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a well-defined, unique purpose. The product/skill tools (list_products, get_free_skill, get_full_skill, get_full_product) are differentiated by scope and access level, and the writing tools (audit_copy, subject_line_scorer, sequence_planner, utm_builder) cover distinct aspects of outreach creation with no overlap. Descriptions explicitly state what each tool is not for, further reducing ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'verb_object' for actions like list_products, get_free_skill, and 'noun_verb' for compound tools like subject_line_scorer. There is no mixing of styles or inconsistent abbreviations.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for an outbound engine. It covers product discovery, skill retrieval, copy auditing, subject line scoring, sequence planning, and UTM building—neither too few to be useful nor too many to be overwhelming.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface appears complete for its stated domain: product/skill lookup, content quality checks (audit_copy, subject_line_scorer), cadence planning (sequence_planner), and campaign tracking (utm_builder). There are no obvious gaps for the knowledge and planning phase of outbound outreach.

Resources

Need Help?