Smartlead Simplified MCP Server

smartlead_update_campaign_status

Update a campaign's status to paused, stopped, or started. Provide the campaign ID and the new status value.

Instructions

Update the status of a campaign. Use this specifically for changing a campaign's status.

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "smartlead_update_campaign_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	New status for the campaign (must be in uppercase)
`campaign_id`	Yes	ID of the campaign to update the status for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 18, 2025

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Update' without revealing side effects, permissions, or required access. No annotations exist, so the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are irreversible or if any validation occurs. The schema's enum and uppercase note are not echoed in the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short at two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use this specifically for...') is somewhat redundant. It is still well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be tighter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the lack of output schema, the description does not mention return values or confirmations. It also does not clarify the scope (e.g., only changes status, not other fields) or provide examples. Adequate but not filling gaps that annotations or extra context would cover.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('campaign_id' and 'status' including enum values and uppercase requirement). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update the status of a campaign'—a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'smartlead_update_campaign_settings' beyond mentioning 'status', and the second sentence is somewhat redundant.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Use this specifically for changing a campaign's status' implies when to use it, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools. No exclusions or context for selection among siblings.

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