Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arsel MCP Server

Arsel MCP Server

Official
by Arsel-SA
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Clone In-App Campaign

clone-in-app-campaign

Copy an existing in-app campaign into a new draft, so you can rework a live or ended campaign without altering the original.

Instructions

Copy an in-app campaign into a new draft, e.g. to rework a live or ended one without touching it.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "clone-in-app-campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe in-app campaign id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the output lands in `draft` state and the source campaign is left untouched, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid surprising side effects.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the rationale trailing. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could note that the returned draft is a new id the caller should capture, but that is a minor gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `id` as the in-app campaign UUID. The description adds nothing about it; baseline 3 applies.

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 (copy/clone), the exact resource (an in-app campaign), and the resulting state (a new draft). An agent can distinguish it from create-in-app-campaign and get-in-app-campaign without opening a schema.

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?

The 'to rework a live or ended one without touching it' clause gives a concrete use case and implicitly explains why you'd clone rather than update. No alternative siblings are named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools