Skip to main content
Glama
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold

Update a campaign

update_campaign
Idempotent

Modify an existing campaign's name, status, schedule, limits, audiences, or accounts via partial update; activating requires at least one template, audience members, and an active account.

Instructions

Update a campaign. Required API key scope: campaigns:write. PATCH /campaigns/{id} Partial update. Setting status: ACTIVE requires at least one template, a primary audience with members, and at least one ACTIVE account. Passing audienceIds replaces the audiences and adds recipients for new members (existing recipients are kept). Passing accountIds replaces the accounts. timezone is ignored.

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPath parameter `id`.
bodyYesJSON request body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the required API key scope 'campaigns:write', the HTTP verb/path, the partial-update nature, and the non-obvious merge behavior: audienceIds replaces audiences but keeps existing recipients, accountIds replaces accounts, and timezone is ignored. These are exactly the behavioral traps an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads verb, scope, and endpoint before details, and every subsequent sentence carries substance (preconditions, replacement semantics, ignored field). The opening 'Update a campaign' merely repeats the title and could be dropped.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description supplies auth scope, endpoint, partial-update contract, state-transition prerequisites, and field merge behavior. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without further discovery.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is nominally 100%, but the nested body properties have no per-field descriptions, and the description compensates for the highest-risk ones — status ACTIVE preconditions, audienceIds replacement/recipient-add semantics, accountIds replacement, and timezone being a no-op. Fields like dailyLimit, sendDelayMin/Max, and preWarmEnabled remain undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('Update a campaign') and backs it with the concrete operation (PATCH /campaigns/{id}, partial update), which distinguishes it from create_campaign and delete_campaign in the sibling set. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives useful conditional guidance — 'Partial update' and the explicit preconditions for setting status: ACTIVE (template, primary audience with members, at least one ACTIVE account). It never states when to prefer a different tool (e.g. get_campaign to read, create_campaign to make a new one), so usage is implied rather than routed.

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