Copy a campaign as a new draft to create A/B variants or reuse successful templates.
Duplicate a campaign as a new draft. Useful for A/B variants or re-using a successful template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var) | |
| campaignId | Yes | Campaign ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, whether the duplicate is a full copy, or what happens to the original campaign. The phrase 'as a new draft' is helpful but insufficient detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no extraneous words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the use cases follow logically. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain expected return value (e.g., the new campaign ID), any constraints (e.g., campaign status requirements), and what is duplicated. It lacks these details, leaving the agent with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('duplicate a campaign') and the outcome ('as a new draft'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_campaign' and 'update_campaign' by specifying duplication. The use cases ('A/B variants or re-using a successful template') reinforce the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear contexts for using the tool (A/B testing, template reuse). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the intended usage is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.