create_campaign
Create a new email campaign
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Mailcannon
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects or return behavior. It only repeats the tool's function; doesn't state whether the campaign is created as draft, requires subsequent steps, or what is returned.
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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous detail.
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?
For a create tool with minimal parameters, the description conveys the basic action but lacks context about post-creation steps, return values, or initial state. Sibling tools suggest a workflow that is not referenced, leaving the agent without guidance on what happens after creation.
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?
The only parameter 'name' is not described in the schema, and the description doesn't explicitly mention it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning from its name alone.
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 'Create a new email campaign' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('email campaign'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_campaign or delete_campaign.
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 on when to use vs alternatives; no mention of campaign lifecycle, prerequisites, or exclusions. The intended use is merely implied by the name and provides no context for choosing between this and related tools.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but a few pairs (check_email_spam_score vs check_step_spam_score, get_deliverability vs check_domain_deliverability) have overlapping concerns. However, descriptions clarify the differences, so an agent can distinguish them with careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. The use of add vs create is a minor style variation but does not create confusion.
Tool Count2/5
At 34 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 tool range and even the 16-25 heavy range. While the broad functionality justifies many tools, the count is likely to make tool selection more difficult for an agent.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full campaign lifecycle including creation, scheduling, processing, and deliverability tracking, plus contact and provider management. Notable gaps include no update_contact or get_campaign by ID, but these are workarounds via list operations.