update_campaign
Update a campaign's name
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
Mailcannon
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without addressing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return values. The mutation is implicit but not elaborated.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient and appropriate for the tool's simplicity, though it omits some contextual details.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description only states the basic action. It lacks information about response behavior, side effects, or usage context, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.
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?
The description adds meaning to the 'name' parameter by indicating it is the field to update, but it does not explicitly describe the 'id' parameter. Given 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is moderate.
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 updates a campaign's name, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_campaign_step 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as schedule_campaign or pause_campaign. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
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.