Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@kadam-net/mcp-server

@kadam-net/mcp-server

Official
by kadam-official
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
JavaScript
Remote

kadam_adv_update_audience

Update an existing audience: fetch current state, merge your changes, and send the full updated payload. Modify only the fields you want to change; type remains fixed.

Instructions

Update an existing audience (read-modify-write). Fetches current state, merges your changes, sends full payload. Type cannot be changed. Pass only the fields you want to change.

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": "kadam_adv_update_audience"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameNo
hasHoldsNo
hasClicksNo
expireDaysNo
hasRejectsNo
campaignIdsNoComma-separated campaign IDs (type=audience)
hasConversionsNo
linkedAudienceIdsNoComma-separated pixel/fingerprint audience IDs (type=s2s)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.9

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the read-modify-write behavior and full payload sending, adding context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradictions 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary text.

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?

While the key behavioral aspects are covered, the description lacks details about return values, error handling, or parameter specifics given the 9-parameter schema and no output schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With only 22% schema description coverage, the description does not detail individual parameters beyond a general principle. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the 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 explicitly states the verb (update), the resource (audience), and the read-modify-write pattern, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or delete.

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 instructs to pass only fields to change and notes that type cannot be changed, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or alternatives beyond implication.

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