DropTrack

DropTrack Validate Campaign Draft

droptrack_validate_campaign_draft

Read-only

Read-only preflight for a campaign draft before using DropTrack Send Test. Requires the expected playlist and contact list, supports normalized-email exclusions from accessible individual contacts, linked lists and exact saved recipient snapshots from prior campaigns, and verifies draft state, audience persistence, subject, optional signoff, Reply-To/test-recipient routing, and outbound U+2014 em-dash safety. This tool does not send email or launch the campaign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaignId`	Yes	The exact campaign draft ID
`expectedSignoff`	No	Optional exact signoff text that must appear in the message
`expectedSubject`	No	Optional exact subject guard
`expectedPlaylistId`	Yes	The playlist ID the draft must contain
`expectedContactListId`	Yes	The contact list ID the draft must contain
`expectedExcludedContactIds`	No	Exact accessible contact IDs excluded only from this draft; normalized-email aliases must also be absent. Does not alter contacts or shared lists.
`expectedExcludedCampaignIds`	No	Prior campaign IDs whose exact saved recipient snapshots must be absent from the saved draft audience
`expectedExcludedContactListIds`	No	Linked contact list IDs whose normalized-email members must be absent from the saved draft audience

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Structured DropTrack result returned by this tool

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expectedExcludedContactIds

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exact accessible contact IDs excluded only from this draft; normalized-email aliases must also be absent. Does not alter contacts or shared lists.",
+  "items": {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 1000,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: it enumerates what is verified (draft state, audience persistence, subject, routing, em-dash safety), notes normalized-email alias handling, and states it does not alter contacts or shared lists. A slight deduction because part of the list reads as feature enumeration rather than distinct behavioral guarantees.

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?

Front-loads 'Read-only preflight' and the send-relationship in the first sentence, which is the most decision-relevant information. The remainder is a dense but mostly purposeful enumeration; it is long, though each clause carries distinct content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the read-only safety profile. Given that, the description is complete: it covers the required context, the verification scope, the exclusion semantics, and the explicit no-send/no-launch boundary an agent needs before invoking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds grouping and intent beyond the schema by distinguishing the three exclusion sources (accessible individual contacts, linked lists, exact saved recipient snapshots). It communicates the semantics of which exclusions pair with which audiences, which the flat schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb (validate), resource (campaign draft), and scope ('read-only preflight'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling send/create campaign tools. The framing 'preflight ... before using DropTrack Send Test' makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Clearly positions the tool as a pre-step before DropTrack Send Test ('before using DropTrack Send Test'), giving strong usage context. However, it does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the send step, leaving the when-not case to inference.

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

All DropTrack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.