send16-mcp

schedule_campaign

Schedule or send immediately an existing draft campaign to a specific audience, segment, or topic. Set a future date or deliver right away.

Instructions

Schedule (or send immediately) an existing draft campaign to an audience/segment/topic.

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": "schedule_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apiKey`	No	Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
`topicId`	No
`segmentId`	No
`audienceId`	No
`campaignId`	Yes	Campaign ID
`scheduleAt`	No	ISO-8601 future datetime; omit to send immediately

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.7Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds the key behavioral trait that the tool can either schedule for a future time or send immediately. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., if scheduling changes campaign state), permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single sentence of 14 words conveys the core functionality without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and behavioral complexity (scheduling vs immediate send). Without an output schema, the description should hint at return values or success indicators. It does not explain parameter interactions, error states, or what happens after scheduling. This leaves the agent under-informed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description groups audienceId, segmentId, and topicId as targets, providing context beyond parameter names. However, it does not clarify mutual exclusivity (if one must be selected) or add constraints. With 50% schema coverage, more parameter explanation is needed to compensate.

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 action ('schedule' or 'send immediately'), the resource ('existing draft campaign'), and the target ('audience/segment/topic'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_broadcast or create_campaign, which operate on different resources or states.

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?

The description implies usage context—you schedule draft campaigns—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_broadcast for sent campaigns, pause_campaign for pausing active campaigns). No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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

Deploy Server