Skip to main content
Glama

FavCRM

by io.favcrm

create_campaign

Create an email, SMS, WhatsApp, or push campaign in DRAFT. audienceExclusions can omit specific account IDs and recipients of previous campaign IDs. For email channelConfig, use subject + htmlBody + optional plainTextBody. recipientSource="list" is accepted as an alias for "individual".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCampaign name (internal)
statusNoDefault DRAFT
channelYesemail | sms | whatsapp | push
segmentIdNoRequired if recipientSource="segment"
scheduledAtNoISO datetime for scheduled send (status must be SCHEDULED)
recipientIdsNoRequired if recipientSource="individual", "list", or "csv"; values are account IDs
channelConfigNoChannel-specific config: subject + htmlBody for email, body for sms/whatsapp, templateId, etc. Legacy email html is normalized to htmlBody.
recipientSourceNoWhere to source recipients from. "list" is normalized to "individual".
audienceExclusionsNoOptional exclusions: accountIds contains specific customer account IDs; campaignIds contains previous campaign IDs whose accepted recipients must be omitted. A recipient matching any rule is excluded.

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / audienceExclusions
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional exclusions: accountIds contains specific customer account IDs; campaignIds contains previous campaign IDs whose accepted recipients must be omitted. A recipient matching any rule is excluded.",
+  "properties": {
+    "accountIds": {
+      "default": [],
+      "items": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 1000,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "campaignIds": {
+      "default": [],
+      "items": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 50,
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, so a write operation is expected. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: campaigns are created in DRAFT, audienceExclusions can remove specific accounts and previous campaign recipients, and email config expects subject + htmlBody + optional plainTextBody. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is three dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by exclusions, channel-specific config, and an alias note. Each sentence carries distinct invocation-relevant information, making it both concise and well-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 9-parameter tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description addresses the key cross-field semantics: default status, audience exclusions, and channel-specific configuration. The remaining details are covered by the schema, so the tool is fully invocable. The lack of any comparison with create_broadcast is the main gap in broader context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by specifying the exact email channelConfig recipe (subject + htmlBody + optional plainTextBody) and clarifying that recipientSource='list' behaves as an alias for 'individual'—details that help correctly populate the parameters.

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 names the action (create), the resource (campaign), and enumerates supported channels (email, SMS, WhatsApp, push) as well as the default DRAFT status. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_broadcast, so it misses full sibling differentiation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_broadcast, validate_campaign, or update_campaign. However, the description gives useful invocation-level guidance for email channelConfig and the recipientSource 'list' alias, so the intended usage is at least implied rather than absent.

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