Send an existing campaign immediately, ignoring its scheduled time. Useful when you need to trigger emails now; queued messages cannot be undone.
SENDS AN EXISTING CAMPAIGN NOW, whatever its schedule said. The send starts immediately and cannot be undone for messages already queued.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric campaign id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavior: the send starts immediately and 'cannot be undone for messages already queued'. This clarifies the irreversibility and timing consequences in a way the annotation alone does not.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. There is minor redundancy between 'SENDS... NOW' and 'The send starts immediately', but the text is otherwise efficient and free of unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: immediate send, schedule override, and irreversibility. It does not explain error behavior or what happens if the campaign is invalid, but those are not essential 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 sole required parameter 'id' is documented as a 'Numeric campaign id'. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the burden adequately, so baseline 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 clearly states the action and object: 'SENDS AN EXISTING CAMPAIGN NOW', with additional detail about overriding the existing schedule. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling send_campaign_now, which appears to describe essentially the same operation, so it misses the 5-level sibling distinction.
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 phrase 'whatever its schedule said' implies this tool is for sending immediately regardless of scheduled time, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as send_campaign_now. Context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.