campaign_createCreate a campaign with an internet-addressable slug and destination for the selected project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| objective | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| destination_url | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 establish that this is non-readonly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-state those. It adds some context about campaign creation requiring a slug and destination, but it does not disclose side effects such as confirmation flow, external actions implied by confirmation_token, or the meaning of the idempotency_key. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. It is concise, but some of the key semantic content could be more informative within the same length.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description leaves critical invocation semantics unclear: required parameters are only partially referenced, and the roles of confirmation_token and idempotency_key are completely absent. Given this is a mutating create operation with side effects, more contextual detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It only hints at destination_url and project_id, leaving name, objective, tags, idempotency_key, and confirmation_token entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with four required parameters.
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 specific verb and resource ('Create a campaign') and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling campaign tools (campaign_archive, campaign_pause, campaign_stats) which operate on existing campaigns. However, the phrase 'internet-addressable slug and destination' is somewhat jargon-heavy and not fully explained.
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?
Usage context is implied: this is the creation tool among campaign operations, and it mentions 'for the selected project,' which signals the project_id requirement. But it does not explicitly state when to use this versus related project/campaign tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like the project already existing.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.