Skip to main content
Glama
This connector has been deprecated

Duplicate listing. The official PumpGTM connector is https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/com.pumpgtm/mcp (same server, https://mcp.pumpgtm.com/mcp).

Build chosen setup campaigns

build_campaigns
Destructive

Build the setup campaigns the customer picked from plan_campaigns as Plays with draft messages that send nothing. Pass their keys and the plan's setupRevision as expectedRevision; a setup that changed since the plan was read is refused, so read the plan again. Building ends the setup questions. Afterwards show each campaign's audience and every draft message in full, approve a Sequence only after the customer approves that exact revision, and ask for LinkedIn, email or billing only when a campaign is ready. Never approves a sequence or contacts anyone. Only a workspace owner or admin's connection may use it. Returns each built campaign with its Play, sequence review link or setup link.

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": {
      "keys": "<keys>",
      "expectedRevision": "<expectedRevision>"
    },
    "name": "build_campaigns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysYesCampaign keys the customer picked, from plan_campaigns.
workspaceIdNoA teammate's workspace you may manage: an active workspace ID from list_team_workspaces. Omit for your own workspace. Supply on every call for a teammate.
expectedRevisionYessetupRevision from plan_campaigns.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYesOne entry per requested campaign: what was built or why not.
nextStepYesWhat to show and ask next.
contactedYesAlways false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructive/non-idempotent; the description explains what that actually means here—optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision with refusal on change, no messages sent, no sequence approved, no outreach, and an owner/admin authorization requirement. That is materially more than the structured hints convey.

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?

The core action and its revision guard are front-loaded, and every clause carries operational content. It is a long run-on with a compound post-build checklist, which costs some readability, but little is genuinely wasted.

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 non-idempotent, destructive-flagged mutation with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, concurrency semantics, authorization, side effects, and a brief return summary (campaign with Play and review/setup link). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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% and both required params are already documented, but the description adds meaning: keys come from plan_campaigns choices and expectedRevision is the plan's setupRevision whose mismatch causes refusal. workspaceId is left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (build), specific resource (setup campaigns picked from plan_campaigns), and the resulting artifact (Plays with draft messages that send nothing). It is unmistakable against siblings like plan_campaigns or preview_workspace_setup.

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?

The description states when to call (after plan_campaigns, with keys and setupRevision), what to do if the revision is stale ("read the plan again"), and what happens after building (setup questions end). It also sequences the downstream approval flow rather than leaving it implicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources