Send a campaign now, or schedule it for a future time by passing scheduled_at. This delivers real email to real recipients and cannot be undone once sending starts — confirm the audience with get_campaign first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID (UUID) | |
| scheduled_at | No | ISO 8601 timestamp to schedule instead of sending immediately |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial context: it delivers real email, cannot be undone once sending starts, and recommends pre-confirmation. This goes beyond the annotations, though it could also mention rate limits or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each value-dense. The first states the action and the second provides risk warning and a safety tip. No fluff or redundancy; perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and the strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the key behavioral risk and a usage guideline. Slight gaps: no mention of what happens after sending (e.g., confirmation response) or potential errors, but these are minor given the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters well. The description reinforces the function of 'scheduled_at' (scheduling future time) but does not add details like timezone handling or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Send') and resource ('campaign'), explicitly states the action (send now or schedule), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send_email' and 'create_campaign' by focusing on the execution of a campaign. It also highlights the irreversible nature of the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when ready to send a campaign) and explicitly advises confirming the audience with 'get_campaign' first. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternative tools, but the guidance to confirm audience is clear and practical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.