Skip to main content
Glama
kadam-official

@kadam-net/mcp-server

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

kadam_adv_update_campaign_folder

Update a campaign group (folder) by renaming it or changing its daily budget, total budget, limits, or distribution; only provided fields are modified.

Instructions

Partially update a campaign group: rename and/or change budgets and distribution. Only the provided fields are changed (campaign group = the UI term for a folder).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameNoNew campaign group name
dailyBudgetNo
totalBudgetNo
limitsEnabledNo
evenDistributionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "New campaign group name",
+  "maxLength": 50,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.9

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. The partial-update contract ('only provided fields are changed') is a meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, but nothing is said about auth requirements, reversibility, or side effects on campaigns inside the folder.

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?

Two tight sentences; the core mutation behavior and the partial-update rule are front-loaded, and the glossary parenthetical is short. No filler.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation with sparse schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the field categories but not the meaning of the budget/distribution toggles or the shape of a successful response. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 only 17% (only 'name' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does group the fields into rename, budgets, and distribution, but leaves dailyBudget vs totalBudget, limitsEnabled, and evenDistribution semantics unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb ('partially update') and resource ('campaign group'), and resolves a real terminology ambiguity by equating 'campaign group' with the UI term 'folder'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling kadam_adv_update_campaign, but the folder framing makes the scope clear.

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?

'Only the provided fields are changed' implies patch-style usage, which is genuinely useful context. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over update_campaign, nor prerequisites such as ownership or permissions on the folder.

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