FavCRM

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin

create_campaign

Create a marketing campaign (email, SMS, or WhatsApp) in DRAFT. For email channelConfig, use subject + htmlBody + optional plainTextBody. recipientSource="list" is accepted as an alias for "individual".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Campaign name (internal)
`status`	No	Default DRAFT
`channel`	Yes	email \| sms \| whatsapp \| push
`segmentId`	No	Required if recipientSource="segment"
`scheduledAt`	No	ISO datetime for scheduled send (status must be SCHEDULED)
`recipientIds`	No	Required if recipientSource="individual", "list", or "csv"; values are account IDs
`channelConfig`	No	Channel-specific config: subject + htmlBody for email, body for sms/whatsapp, templateId, etc. Legacy email html is normalized to htmlBody.
`recipientSource`	No	Where to source recipients from. "list" is normalized to "individual".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
`summary`	Yes	One-line human-readable summary of the action
`renderType`	Yes	UI rendering hint for the result

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so description carries burden. It adds that campaigns start as DRAFT and that 'list' is normalized to 'individual', and provides email config specifics. No contradictions. Good behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. First sentence states core purpose and scope; second gives key usage tips. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description adequately covers creation context (DRAFT default, email config, alias). Could mention scheduling or company scoping, but overall sufficient for a creation tool with rich schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by reiterating email config details and the recipientSource alias, but most of that is already in schema. No additional meaning beyond schema for other parameters.

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 specifies the action (create) and resource (marketing campaign) and adds context (channels: email, SMS, WhatsApp) and initial state (DRAFT). It is clear but does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_broadcast or create_promotion, which might overlap.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides some usage hints (e.g., email channelConfig fields, recipientSource alias) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks when-not or comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

All FavCRM tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions that minimize ambiguity. Even related tools like create_post vs create_post_type are well-separated by their targets.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_account, list_services, update_post), with no mixing of naming conventions. The pattern is predictable throughout the set.

Tool Count1/5

190 tools is excessively large for any server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 tool range. The sheer volume overwhelms agents and suggests poor scoping, even for a comprehensive CRM platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers CRUD operations across many domains (CRM, bookings, marketing, CMS, etc.), but notable gaps exist (e.g., no delete_account, delete_contact, update_booking). These are minor given the vast surface.

Resources

Need Help?