Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_campaigns_update_campaign

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace a merchant campaign's details by sending every value to keep; omitted start/end dates or external reference are cleared, while an omitted status remains unchanged.

Instructions

[Merchant] Replace a campaign's details. An omitted startsOn, endsOn or externalRef is cleared; an omitted status keeps the current one. Get the campaign first and send every value you want to keep.

Endpoint: PUT /campaigns/{campaignId} (PRM plan)

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": {
      "campaignId": "<campaignId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "payware_campaigns_update_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCampaign name, up to 100 characters
endsOnNoLast day, YYYY-MM-DD
statusNoDescriptive only: it does not switch the placements on or off
startsOnNoFirst day, YYYY-MM-DD
campaignIdYesThe campaign's ID: cp + 8 letters or digits, e.g. cp7e4rCToG
useSandboxNoUse the sandbox (the default) rather than production
externalRefNoAn agency's own campaign code, up to 100 characters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: omitting startsOn, endsOn, or externalRef clears those fields, while omitting status preserves the current one. The destructiveHint=true annotation is now actionable because the agent knows exactly which omissions wipe data. The "get first, send every value you want to keep" warning covers the safe call pattern.

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 destructive "Replace" is bolded and front-loaded, followed by one sentence of omission rules and one line for the endpoint. Three short blocks, zero filler, and the most consequential fact comes first.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive PUT with 7 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition covers the key risks: field clearing, the read-before-write prerequisite, and the plan requirement. It stops short of describing the response body or error behavior, which an agent would need to confirm success.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds omission semantics for startsOn, endsOn, externalRef, and status. Those semantics are not in the per-field descriptions and materially change how an agent fills the payload.

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?

"Replace a campaign's details" names a specific verb (replace, not patch), the exact resource (campaign), and the endpoint PUT /campaigns/{campaignId}. That framing makes it distinguishable from create_campaign and delete_campaign without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a concrete operational instruction: get the campaign first and send every value you want to keep. The when-to-use condition (full replacement vs. partial edit) is clear, though no sibling is named as an alternative. There is also no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, and the PRM-plan note is buried in a parenthetical.

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