Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

by io.github.Misar-AI

create_campaign

Create a new email marketing campaign as a draft. Creating never sends — call send_campaign separately once the content and audience are confirmed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlNoHTML body content
nameYesInternal campaign name (not shown to recipients)
tagsNoContact tags to target
textNoPlain text body content
subjectYesSubject line recipients will see
reply_toNoReply-to address
from_nameNoSender display name
from_emailYesVerified sender address
segment_idNoAudience segment to send to
template_idNoUse a saved template instead of inline HTML
scheduled_atNoISO 8601 timestamp to schedule the send (omit to keep as draft)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses a critical behavior: 'Creating never sends' and that the campaign is created as a draft. This adds context beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive) and clarifies the lack of immediate sending side effects.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences—and clearly conveys the core purpose and the key behavior (no sending). It avoids superfluous words and is well-structured for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains that it creates a draft and does not send, but it omits details about the return value (e.g., campaign ID) and any expected side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not highly complete.

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 schema already provides per-parameter descriptions covering all 11 parameters (100% coverage), and the overall description does not add granular details about parameters. It only generically refers to 'content and audience,' which is already implied by the schema. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new email marketing campaign as a draft' and explicitly distinguishes it from sending by noting 'Creating never sends — call send_campaign separately.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the sibling tool send_campaign.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear guidance to call send_campaign separately once content and audience are confirmed, implying the intended workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use other related tools (e.g., list_campaigns, update_campaign), but given the context, the guidance is sufficient.

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

All MisarMail MCP Server toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and the descriptions do a good job of cross-referencing related tools. However, there are several close clusters—get_analytics vs generate_report, get_deliverability_score vs run_deliverability_audit, check_dmarc vs verify_domain, and list_emails vs list_inbox_conversations vs get_email—that could cause an agent to pick the wrong one. The detailed descriptions reduce but do not eliminate this ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern throughout: create_, get_, list_, send_, toggle_, and so on. Even multi-word actions like select_ab_test_winner and categorize_inbox_emails stay uniform. The only slight deviation is the bare verb upgrade, but it is readable and does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

54 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and lands heavily in the 'too many' range. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated—multiple analytics/reporting tools, several deliverability checks, and separate email/inbox listing tools create redundancy. The sheer number increases selection overhead and makes the toolset harder for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness3/5

The core email marketing lifecycle is represented: domains, contacts, campaigns, templates, automations, sends, and analytics all have main operations. However, there are notable gaps—no update/delete for campaigns, templates, forms, or automations; no create/update/delete for forms; no sandbox enable/disable; and no way to install marketplace items. These are workable gaps but would cause failures for agents trying to perform full lifecycle management.

Resources