Skip to main content
Glama

fluentcrm_delete_campaign

Delete a marketing campaign from FluentCRM by specifying its campaign ID. This tool removes campaigns from the WordPress plugin's automation system.

Instructions

Usuwa kampanię

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaignIdYesID kampanii

Implementation Reference

  • MCP CallTool handler case that extracts the campaignId from input arguments and calls FluentCRMClient.deleteCampaign to execute the deletion, returning the JSON-stringified result.
    case 'fluentcrm_delete_campaign':
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await client.deleteCampaign((args as any)?.campaignId), null, 2) }] };
  • Input schema definition specifying that campaignId (number) is required.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        campaignId: { type: 'number', description: 'ID kampanii' },
      },
      required: ['campaignId'],
    },
  • Tool registration in the ListTools response, defining the tool name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'fluentcrm_delete_campaign',
      description: 'Usuwa kampanię',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          campaignId: { type: 'number', description: 'ID kampanii' },
        },
        required: ['campaignId'],
      },
    },
  • FluentCRMClient helper method that performs the actual HTTP DELETE request to the /campaigns/{campaignId} endpoint using axios and returns the API response data.
    async deleteCampaign(campaignId: number) {
      const response = await this.apiClient.delete(`/campaigns/${campaignId}`);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'deletes' but does not elaborate on critical aspects: whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated contacts or automations), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single word ('Usuwa kampanię'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It directly states the action, though it lacks detail. For conciseness alone, it scores highly as it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions. Sibling tools include other delete operations, but no differentiation is provided. The description fails to compensate for the missing structured data, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'campaignId' clearly documented as 'ID kampanii' (ID of the campaign). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Usuwa kampanię' (Polish for 'Deletes a campaign') restates the tool name 'fluentcrm_delete_campaign' in a tautological manner. It specifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'campaign' but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fluentcrm_delete_contact' or 'fluentcrm_delete_list', which follow the same pattern. This is minimal and lacks specificity beyond the obvious.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing campaign ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'fluentcrm_pause_campaign' or 'fluentcrm_resume_campaign'. Without any context, it fails to help an agent make informed decisions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/netflyapp/fluentcrm-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server