Create a named audience to group contacts for targeted email campaigns. Establish a list that can be used to send and manage communications.
Create an audience — a named list of contacts (POST /audiences).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Audience name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation (create) and the HTTP method (POST), but does not mention side effects, duplicate handling, authentication needs, or what happens on success or failure. Adequate for a simple creation, but not richly transparent.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds one useful clarifying detail (named list of contacts) and the endpoint.
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?
For a one-parameter creation tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description plus the input schema is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could mention the expected response or uniqueness constraints, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 100% and the only parameter, 'name', is already described as 'Audience name.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 an audience'), defines the resource as 'a named list of contacts', and includes the endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_segment or create_contact.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_segment or import_contacts_batch. The purpose implies it is for creating an audience, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.