update_campaign_step
Update a campaign step's day, subject, or body
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| day | No | Delay in hours | |
| body | No | ||
| subject | No |
Mailcannon
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that fields are updated, but does not specify whether updates are incremental or overwrite all fields, what happens to unspecified fields, whether id validation occurs, or any error scenarios. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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?
A single sentence of nine words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently. It omits behavior like whether partial updates are supported, response format, and error conditions. A more complete description would include these details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 25% of schema parameters have descriptions (only 'day' says 'Delay in hours'). The description merely lists parameter names without adding meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not clarify that 'body' might be HTML or plain text, or that 'day' could be negative or non-integer. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Update') and the specific resource ('a campaign step') along with the editable fields ('day, subject, or body'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_campaign_step and delete_campaign_step, which are for different actions on the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this should be used for existing steps, nor does it contrast with add_campaign_step or update_campaign. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.