Skip to main content
Glama

campaign

Destructive

Manage LinkedIn outreach lifecycle: launch, pause, resume, archive, delete, or emergency-stop active sequences to control sales prospecting, recruiting, and partner outreach.

Instructions

Launch, pause, resume, archive, delete or emergency-stop a campaign.

Every action here changes what happens next. Watching one run, or reading
its history, is campaign_status.

Args:
    action: "launch", "pause", "resume", "archive", "delete",
        "emergency_stop", "retry_failed", "repair_queue" or
        "clear_coordinator_hold".
    campaign_id: Which campaign. Uses the active one if empty.
    confirm: Required by the actions that destroy work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
confirmNo
campaign_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.375

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the default campaign_id behavior ('Uses the active one if empty') and the confirm requirement for destructive actions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: two sentences of purpose/guidance followed by a tight argument list. It front-loads the primary verbs and then provides exact parameter semantics without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter, 9-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the state-changing purpose, all action keywords, parameter defaults, and the confirm flag. It doesn't explain nuances like when to choose emergency_stop over pause, but these are not essential for a correct first invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries the full burden. The Args section lists every allowed action value, explains the campaign_id default, and clarifies confirm's role. This adds substantial meaning to the bare schema.

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 lists a specific set of verbs ('Launch, pause, resume, archive, delete or emergency-stop a campaign') applied to a resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling campaign_status. This makes the tool's scope clear and separates it from alternatives.

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 description gives clear context: 'Every action here changes what happens next' and points to campaign_status for watching or reading history. It does not explicitly mention create/edit siblings, but the state-changing framing is enough to guide the agent toward when to use this tool.

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