send16-mcp

update_campaign

Update a draft email campaign's subject, body, preview text, or sender details.

Instructions

Update a draft campaign's content, subject, preview text, or sender info.

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": "update_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`html`	No
`apiKey`	No	Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
`replyTo`	No
`subject`	No
`fromName`	No
`fromEmail`	No
`campaignId`	Yes	Campaign ID
`previewText`	No
`templateSlug`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.7Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes a mutation ('Update') but does not disclose required permissions, reversibility, or effect on campaign status. The response format is not mentioned.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise but could benefit from further detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 9 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover required status, optionality, or interaction with campaign state. The sibling tools suggest a rich campaign lifecycle, but no context is provided for when this tool fits.

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 description coverage is only 22% (only campaignId and apiKey have descriptions). The description groups parameters (e.g., 'sender info' for fromName/fromEmail/replyTo) adding some meaning, but it lacks detail on format or constraints. The input schema provides patterns and formats, but their semantics are not explained.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'draft campaign', and lists updatable fields (content, subject, preview text, sender info). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign and delete_campaign. However, it does not clarify that only draft campaigns can be updated, which may be a constraint.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like schedule_campaign or send_campaign_test. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions.

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

Deploy Server