Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ActiveCampaign MCP

ActiveCampaign MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

bulk_update_a_custom_field_value

Idempotent

Bulk update custom field values for multiple deals by providing IDs and new values. Modifies existing records idempotently.

Instructions

🟡 WRITE · updates data · Deal Custom Field Data · PATCH /dealCustomFieldData/bulkUpdate

Bulk update a custom field value

Modifies an existing record in place. Idempotent.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bulk_update_a_custom_field_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoRequest body (application/json).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description confirms the write operation and idempotency, which are already indicated by annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as the HTTP method and the resource name.

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 very concise, using a single line with emoji, path, and verb, followed by two short sentences. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 schema provides parameter details and annotations cover safety, the description lacks clarity about the bulk nature (says 'Modifies an existing record' singularly) and does not explain the return value. Given the nested body structure, more context would be beneficial.

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 descriptions cover all parameters with details (id, fieldValue with currency note, fieldCurrency). The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool performs a bulk update of a custom field value, specifically for Deal Custom Field Data, with the HTTP method and path provided. It distinguishes itself from singular update tools among siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_a_custom_deal_field_value' or other bulk operations. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios.

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