Club OS by Cotlet

Deactivate an automatic email campaign in Club OS

club_os_deactivate_an_automatic_email_campaign

Read-onlyIdempotent

Deactivate an automatic email campaign in the user's own Club OS account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Club OS step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Club OS Cloud Browser. Club OS's official API: Club OS has an official API for its calendar, agreements, leads, follow-ups and KPIs, but credentials come only by emailing Club OS support to set up an account (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": "club_os_deactivate_an_automatic_email_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the actual return shape ('screens, buttons, fields') and explicitly states 'opens nothing by itself', which is exactly the fact an agent could otherwise get wrong and assume a mutation occurred. It also names the follow-on browser tool family needed to complete the action.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by behavior, then the follow-on tooling, then API context. The closing official-API paragraph with a dated verification stamp is somewhat tangential, but it justifies the browser-based approach rather than being pure filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, everything an agent needs is present: what it does, that it only returns instructions, what those instructions look like, and which tools finish the job. No relevant gap remains.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to explain. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, but adds nothing further on this dimension.

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 description names a specific verb and resource ('Deactivate an automatic email campaign'), scopes it to 'the user's own Club OS account', and immediately clarifies the non-obvious nature of the operation: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the change. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling activation and campaign-sending tools without opening any schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent onward: read the returned steps, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Club OS Cloud Browser', and it explains why the official API is not an option (credentials require emailing support). It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool, but the workflow context is clear enough to act on.

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

All Club OS 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?