Campaign Monitor MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Schedule campaign in Campaign Monitor

campaign_monitor_schedule_campaign

Read-onlyIdempotent

Schedule campaign in the user's own Campaign Monitor account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Campaign Monitor step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Campaign Monitor Cloud Browser. Campaign Monitor's official API: Campaign Monitor has a full public REST API, v3.3, for lists, subscribers, segments, campaigns, reports and transactional email, and no official MCP server (checked 22 Oct 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": "campaign_monitor_schedule_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description is consistent, reinforcing that the tool 'opens nothing by itself'. It adds real value beyond annotations by describing the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and explaining why the browser route is required (no official MCP server, only a REST API v3.3). It does not mention any auth or account-state requirements.

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 critical information, that the tool returns instructions rather than acting, is front-loaded in the second sentence. The closing API-provenance sentence ('v3.3 ... checked 22 Oct 2026') is somewhat bulky but justifies why the browser flow is used. Overall compact for the amount of context conveyed.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema guidance tool, the description covers what it returns and what it does not do. An agent knows to call it first and then hand off to cotlet_browser_* tools. Minor gap: it doesn't state whether the returned steps assume a campaign already exists.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool; no parameter detail is expected or missing.

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 states the verb and resource ('Schedule campaign in the user's own Campaign Monitor account') and immediately clarifies the tool's actual nature: it 'Returns how to do it ... step by step' and 'opens nothing by itself'. This resolves the mismatch between the name, which implies execution, and the read-only guidance behavior. It does not explicitly contrast itself with campaign_monitor_create_campaign_draft, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is clear: call this to get step-by-step instructions, then perform the action 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Campaign Monitor Cloud Browser'. That names the alternative path explicitly. There is no stated when-not-to-use case (e.g. when a draft already exists or when the API-based siblings suffice), which keeps it below a 5.

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

All Campaign Monitor MCP Server and API 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?