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
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only states 'update' implying mutation but provides no detail on update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with verb and object. However, it omits key behavioral and parameter details, making it slightly under-specified.
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 tool with 4 params and no annotations/output schema, the description provides minimal context. It lacks usage context, update semantics, and parameter details needed for reliable invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (day has 'Delay in hours'). Description lists subject/body but adds no further meaning. It doesn't clarify formats, required id, or how parameters interact.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Update' and resource 'campaign step' with explicit fields (day, subject, or body), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_campaign_step or delete_campaign_step.
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 this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether it's for modifying an existing step or partial/full updates, nor does it state exclusions.
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.