Skip to main content
Glama

Metadata MCP Connector

Archive Campaigns

archive_campaigns
Destructive

Archive one or more campaigns, with a result per campaign.

            Archiving is how a campaign is deleted: the platform has no hard
            delete. An archived campaign is hidden, releases its name (a new
            campaign may take it) and can be put back with unarchive_campaigns.
            A campaign with live experiments (active, in review or waiting
            for a channel reconnect) cannot be archived.

            KEYWORDS: archive, delete, remove, discard, trash, retire, campaign, draft

            WHEN TO USE:
            - The user asks to archive, delete or remove campaigns they named
            - The user agreed to archive the drafts a rebuild replaced

            WARNING: archive only campaigns the user named or agreed to, and
            only on an exact name match: search_campaigns_by_names also
            returns partial matches.

            Each campaign is processed on its own, so one that cannot be
            archived does not stop the others. `results` holds one entry per
            campaign with its `outcome`:
            - archived (a `message` notes a pending launch it suspended)
            - already_archived: it was archived before; nothing changed
            - not_in_account: no campaign with that id in this account
            - native_imported: imported from an ad channel account, which is
              never archived here
            - in_progress: it is being launched or edited right now; archive
              it once that finishes
            - live_experiments: it has live experiments; an Active campaign
              can be paused with manage_campaign first
            - not_attempted: the call stopped early (a rejected session or
              rate limiting) before reaching it
            - unknown: the platform's answer was lost; check the campaign
              before trying again
            - error: the platform refused it; `message` says why

            REQUIRED PARAMETERS:
            - campaign_ids: 1 to 50 campaign ids, from search_campaigns_by_names
              or list_wizard_campaigns

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idsYesThe ids of the campaigns to archive (1 to 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description expands on this by explaining that archiving hides the campaign, releases its name, and is reversible via unarchive_campaigns. It also discloses per-campaign processing and the full set of outcome states, going well beyond the annotation-only signal.

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 long but densely structured with labeled sections: KEYWORDS, WHEN TO USE, WARNING, outcome enumeration, and REQUIRED PARAMETERS. It front-loads the core purpose and critical deletion semantics, and every section adds decision-relevant detail for a destructive, edge-case-heavy operation.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully enumerates all possible per-campaign outcomes and what each means for the next agent action. It covers constraints, reversibility, id sourcing, and failure modes, so an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance by stating that campaign_ids should come from search_campaigns_by_names or list_wizard_campaigns and by warning that partial-name matches are not sufficient. This provenance helps the agent select valid ids, so a 4 is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Archive one or more campaigns'. It further clarifies that archiving is the platform's delete mechanism, distinguishing it from hard deletion and linking it explicitly to the sibling unarchive_campaigns. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable relative to archive_ad and archive_audience.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The 'WHEN TO USE' section is explicit, telling the agent to use this tool when the user asks to archive/delete/remove named campaigns or agreed to archive replaced drafts. It also includes a critical exclusion: campaigns with live experiments cannot be archived, and points to manage_campaign as the alternative for pausing an Active campaign first.

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.

Resources