Volanea

volanea_create_campaign_draft

Create a campaign as a DRAFT for the user to review and send from the dashboard. This tool never sends — there is deliberately no send tool, because a mistaken broadcast reaches the entire audience. Audience: 'all' contacts, a 'segment' (segmentId), or an ad-hoc 'filter' condition tree. Optional A/B subject test via abSubjectB + abSamplePct.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	HTML body. Supports {{variable}} placeholders.
`name`	Yes	Internal name for the campaign list — never shown to recipients. The subject is what they see.
`filter`	No	Required when audience = 'filter'. Same condition DSL as segments.
`replyTo`	No	Where replies go, if not the from address. Its domain does NOT need verifying. Point it at a real inbox — or at an inbound address, whose local part keeps its case so a ticket token survives the round trip.
`subject`	Yes	Subject line recipients see. Supports {{variable}} placeholders, including the {{name \| "default"}} fallback form.
`audience`	No	Who receives it. `all` = every subscribed contact. `segment` = an existing segment, and requires `segmentId`. `filter` = an inline condition tree, and requires `filter` — use it for a one-off audience you do not want to keep. Unsubscribed contacts are excluded from all three, since campaigns are marketing mail.
`fromName`	No	Display name shown beside the from address, e.g. "Volanea Team".
`fromEmail`	Yes	Sender address. Its domain must be verified for this project or the send is refused — check volanea_get_project_status for which domains are verified before choosing one.
`segmentId`	No	Required when audience = 'segment'.
`abSubjectB`	No	Variant-B subject line for an A/B test.
`abSamplePct`	No	Percent of the audience in the A/B sample (5–50).
`previewText`	No	The preview snippet most clients show beside the subject. Omit it and they fall back to the first words of the HTML, which is usually a logo alt-text or an unsubscribe line.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Machine-readable failure code to branch on. Present only when success is false.
`data`	No	Present when success is true.
`error`	No	Human-readable failure reason. Present only when success is false.
`success`	Yes	False when the call failed; read `error` and `code` in that case.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With only a title annotation, the description carries the burden and discloses the critical trait that it never sends and why, plus that unsubscribed contacts are excluded from every audience. It stops short of stating rate limits, error/refusal behavior, or what the draft record looks like on return.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the draft/no-send constraint that matters most, then the audience and A/B options. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists and schema coverage is total, so return values and per-parameter syntax need not be explained. The description covers the audience model, A/B options, and the draft-only contract; minor gaps (verification failure behavior, rate limits) remain but are not blocking.

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 12 parameters in depth. The description restates audience modes and names abSubjectB/abSamplePct for the A/B test, adding only modest framing beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb ('create'), resource ('campaign'), and the exact resulting state ('as a DRAFT for the user to review and send from the dashboard'). It also distinguishes itself from a nonexistent send tool, so an agent knows this is a write-but-not-deliver operation.

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?

Explains the workflow (create draft, review in dashboard, there is deliberately no send tool) and gives explicit selection guidance between the three audience modes, including the tradeoff for 'filter' ('a one-off audience you do not want to keep'). It also routes the agent to volanea_get_project_status before choosing fromEmail.

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

All Volanea 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?