Skip to main content
Glama

FavCRM

by io.favcrm

create_broadcast

Create a DRAFT WhatsApp or SMS broadcast campaign. The broadcast is NOT sent — admin must review and send it from the Broadcasts page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCampaign name
channelNoChannel (default whatsapp)
templateIdNoMessage template ID to use
scheduledAtNoISO date to schedule the broadcast
recipientFilterNoAudience for this draft. Omit for all customers, use { tagIds: ["..."] } for the legacy tag filter, or provide recipientType with the required recipientIds, segmentId, or tierId.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesTool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
summaryYesOne-line human-readable summary of the action
renderTypeYesUI rendering hint for the result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / recipientFilter / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -{}
    • addedInput schema / properties / recipientFilter / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "recipientType": {
+        "const": "all",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tagIds": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "recipientType"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "recipientIds": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "minItems": 1,
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "recipientType": {
+        "const": "individual",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "recipientType",
+      "recipientIds"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "recipientType": {
+        "const": "segment",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "segmentId": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "recipientType",
+      "segmentId"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "recipientType": {
+        "const": "tier",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tierId": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "recipientType",
+      "tierId"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "tagIds": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "minItems": 1,
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "tagIds"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / recipientFilter / description
      Previous value: -"Filter criteria for recipients, e.g. { tagIds: [\"...\"] }"New value: +"Audience for this draft. Omit for all customers, use { tagIds: [\"...\"] } for the legacy tag filter, or provide recipientType with the required recipientIds, segmentId, or tierId."
    • removedInput schema / properties / recipientFilter / propertyNames
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / recipientFilter / type
      Removed value: -"object"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the broadcast is not sent and requires admin review. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent that this is a non-sending, draft-creating operation.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical caveat. Extremely efficient and structured.

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 draft-creation tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavior. It doesn't mention return values or permissions, but the output schema and annotations cover those. The caveat about admin review provides important workflow context, making it complete for the tool's core scope.

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 100% with each parameter well-documented, including the complex recipientFilter anyOf. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema handles it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra parameter context is needed.

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 verb (create), resource (DRAFT WhatsApp or SMS broadcast campaign), and the key nuance that it's a draft and not sent. This distinguishes it from other campaign tools like create_campaign by specifying broadcast and channel.

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?

The description implies usage context: create a draft that requires admin review and sending. It doesn't name explicit alternative tools, but the workflow clarification effectively tells the agent when to use this (to create a draft) versus when not (when immediate sending is desired). Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

All FavCRM toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping boundaries, such as generate_post_cover/attach_post_cover_from_job/upload_post_cover_from_url, update_deal/update_deal_stage/mark_deal_won/mark_deal_lost, and booking status transitions (confirm/cancel/complete/mark_no_show). The catch-all execute_tool adds further ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*, delete_*, restore_*). Minor exceptions like 'clone' and 'execute_tool' are still readable and do not significantly break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 223 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped. Even for a full CRM platform, this many tools overwhelms context windows and makes tool selection impractical. It far exceeds the reasonable range for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The surface is broad but has notable gaps: no update_booking/delete_booking, no delete_product, no send_message/send_campaign (referenced but absent), and no delete_staff/resource. Some workflows dead-end or require manual approval steps.

Resources