AestheticsPro by Cotlet

Schedule E-Blast in AestheticsPro

aestheticspro_schedule_e_blast

Read-onlyIdempotent

Schedule E-Blast in the user's own AestheticsPro account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in AestheticsPro step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser. AestheticsPro's official API: AestheticsPro offers "Custom API solutions" only as custom work on its $350 a month Enterprise plan, arranged with AestheticsPro, and publishes no public API documentation or self-serve API key page (checked 11 Nov 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aestheticspro_schedule_e_blast"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description reinforces and extends that by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and instead returns screens, buttons and fields. The disclosure that AestheticsPro publishes no public API and requires a $350/month Enterprise arrangement for custom work adds real context about why this tool behaves the way it does. Output is described qualitatively, with no detail on size or format of the returned walkthrough.

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 most important fact, that this returns instructions rather than acting, is front-loaded in the first sentence. The closing API paragraph is long relative to the rest but earns most of its space by explaining the browser-tool fallback. Some phrasing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') is padding.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what is returned (a step-by-step procedure), what side effects to expect (none), and what must follow (browser tools). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (schedule an E-Blast) and immediately clarifies the true behavior: it returns a step-by-step AestheticsPro walkthrough rather than performing the send. That distinction is the key thing an agent needs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from channel-adjacent siblings such as aestheticspro_send_sms_blast or the template-creation tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear two-stage workflow: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. The API note explains why browser automation is required, which is genuine usage context. It does not state when-not-to-use or name an alternative path for scheduling an e-blast.

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

All AestheticsPro by Cotlet 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?