Skip to main content
Glama

Add contacts to campaign

add_contacts_to_campaign

Add selected contacts to your campaign through the existing duplicate checks.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_contacts_to_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The phrase 'through the existing duplicate checks' adds genuine behavioral context (duplicates are silently deduplicated rather than erroring), but dry-run semantics of 'preview' and whether contacts are added additively are not disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good structurally. However, the brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficiency given the complexity of the nested payload it fronts.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested eight-field body, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, yet the description is one short sentence. It should at minimum explain preview mode and how contacts are identified, which it does not.

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 0% across a nested object with eight fields, including ambiguous ones like 'preview', 'entity_ids', 'media_list', 'user_emails', and 'from_monitor'. The description hints that contacts are 'selected' (suggesting entity_ids or user_emails) but adds no meaning about which parameter to use, nor explains the critically important 'preview' flag.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Add selected contacts to your campaign'), so an agent immediately understands the action. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the counterpart sibling 'exclude_contacts' or from campaign-creation tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'exclude_contacts', 'create_podcast_campaign', or 'update_campaign'. The schema exposes a 'preview' flag but the description never explains when to run a dry-run first, leaving the most important workflow decision undocumented.

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.