Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Outbound Engine

by com.moltlinestudio

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesDestination URL; must start with http:// or https://.
termNoOptional utm_term value for paid keywords.
mediumYesutm_medium value — the channel, e.g. "email" or "cpc".
sourceYesutm_source value — where the traffic comes from, e.g. "newsletter".
contentNoOptional utm_content value for A/B variants.
campaignYesutm_campaign value — the campaign name, e.g. "spring-launch".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description reinforces these and adds critical detail about error handling (returns JSON error object, never protocol error), which goes beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with purpose first, then example, then usage boundaries, then error behavior. Every sentence adds value, though slightly longer than minimal could be; still clear and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, error behavior, and idempotency. Everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value through a typical input/output example that demonstrates how parameters map to the tagged URL, though it does not cover optional parameters like term and content.

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 clearly states the tool builds a UTM-tagged URL for campaign tracking, provides a concrete example, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_copy, which is for message body content.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (build one tracking URL) and when not to (analyzing results, message body). Names the alternative sibling (audit_copy). Also notes safety of retry after correcting input errors.

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 toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: audit_copy for message bodies, subject_line_scorer for subject lines, sequence_planner for cadences, utm_builder for UTM URLs, and separate tools for product/skill retrieval (list_products, get_free_skill, get_full_skill, get_full_product) with explicit differences in scope. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case naming convention with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., audit_copy, list_products, subject_line_scorer). The naming is predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools covering copy auditing, subject line scoring, cadence planning, UTM building, and product/skill access, the tool count is well-scoped for an outbound outreach server. Each tool serves a necessary function without any redundancy or missing essential operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core tasks of outreach planning and analysis: copy auditing, subject line ranking, cadence planning, UTM building, and product/skill instructions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for generating outreach copy or managing contacts), but these are outside the server's stated scope and can be handled by other servers.

Resources