Send a campaign immediately or schedule it for later by providing a date and time.
Send a campaign now, or schedule it with scheduled_at (POST /campaigns/:id/send).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The campaign id. | |
| scheduled_at | No | Optional ISO 8601 / natural-language schedule time. Omit to send now. |
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 transparency burden. It does disclose the key behavioral distinction between sending now and scheduling, and it provides the HTTP endpoint, but it does not mention whether sending is irreversible, whether it can be triggered more than once, or whether scheduled_at must be in the future. This is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 one tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and optional scheduling behavior, then adds the endpoint. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.
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 simple mutation tool with one required string parameter and one optional timestamp, the description plus the fully documented schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe return values or error cases, but those are minor omissions given the absence of an output schema and the otherwise clear semantics.
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?
The schema already fully documents both parameters, including the fact that omitting scheduled_at sends now, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the structured schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 names the action verb ('send'), the resource ('a campaign'), and the two modes: immediately or scheduled. It also includes the endpoint, which makes the tool's function unambiguous even among campaign lifecycle siblings like cancel_campaign or update_campaign.
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?
The description clearly conveys when to use this tool for sending a campaign now or later, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as send_email or send_batch_emails, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly differentiated from similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.