Widely

Rename a campaign invite code

update_campaign_code

DestructiveIdempotent

Renames one of this seat's campaign invite codes. The code itself never changes. Omitted confirm returns a preview on every client.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_campaign_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`confirm`	No	Omitted returns a preview on every client. True saves the name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added value is the invariant "the code itself never changes" and the preview-on-omitted-confirm behavior, which tells the agent this is a safe two-phase mutation. It does not say what the preview contains or how failures surface, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the invariant and the confirm behavior. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral facts (invariant, preview mode). Missing only error behavior and what the preview returns.

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 coverage is only 33% (only `confirm` is documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does: "the code itself never changes" implies `name` is a label rather than the code value, and "Renames ... codes" implies `id` selects the target, but neither parameter is explicitly defined.

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 ("Renames") and resource ("campaign invite codes") plus the scope ("this seat's"). This cleanly separates it from create_campaign_code and list_campaign_codes without needing to name them.

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?

The rename use case is implied by the verb, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over create_campaign_code or list_campaign_codes, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that the code must already exist on this seat).

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

All Widely 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.