set_setting
Set a user setting (e.g. timezone to 'America/New_York')
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| value | Yes |
Set a user setting (e.g. timezone to 'America/New_York')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| value | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it sets a setting. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or idempotency. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with an example, very concise. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate general description and parameter details), but it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two string params, no output schema) and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on valid setting keys, value constraints, persistence, and error conditions. More context is needed for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example (key='timezone', value='America/New_York') but no explanation of valid keys, value formats, or constraints for the two string parameters. Insufficient semantic help.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Set' and resource 'a user setting' with a concrete example, making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_setting' implicitly, but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an example (timezone) implying when to use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_settings' or 'get_setting'. No when-not or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource. Campaign lifecycle steps (create, update, delete, schedule, pause, resume) are clearly separate from contact management (add, remove, update tags) and provider/domain operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_contact, check_domain_deliverability, delete_campaign_step). Mixing of singular/plural nouns (list_campaigns vs list_tags) is intentional and does not break consistency.
34 tools is high but justified for a full-featured email campaign server covering campaigns, contacts, providers, scheduling, deliverability, and task management. A few tools like check_email_spam_score and check_step_spam_score could be merged, but overall the count is reasonable.
The tool surface covers the complete CRM lifecycle: campaign CRUD, step management, contact CRUD with tags, provider setup, scheduling, deliverability checks, and spam analysis. Only minor gaps like per-campaign analytics or import/export exist, but core workflows are fully covered.