Skip to main content
Glama

agent-cold-email

by io.github.YS-projectcalc

configure_dashboard

Destructive

Write a saved dashboard view. action = create (needs name+layout) | update (needs id+rev+layout; optional name renames) | promote (id → default) | delete (id). update is rev-CAS: a stale rev returns { currentRev, currentLayout } to rebase and retry. Optional note. Read the current rev+layout via get_dashboard first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoRequired for update/promote/delete.
revNoRequired for update — the rev this edit is based on; stale vs. the view's CURRENT rev returns a structured conflict with currentRev/currentLayout to rebase onto.
nameNoRequired for create. Optional for update — pass it to rename the view; omit to leave the name unchanged.
noteNoOptional human-readable note recorded alongside this edit (edited_by_note).
actionYes
layoutNoRequired for create/update.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses destructiveHint=true via annotations and adds behavioral details: CAS for updates, conflict return format, and the need to fetch current state first. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and action rules. No wasted words; each sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Covers actions, required params, CAS behavior, and prerequisite reading. Lacks detail on success response format (no output schema), but for a write tool with such rich schema, the description is largely complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Description adds significant value beyond the schema: clarifies required parameters per action (e.g., create needs name+layout, update needs id+rev+layout, promote/delete need id) and explains the rev parameter's CAS role. Schema coverage is high (83%), but description compensates for any gaps.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Write a saved dashboard view' and enumerates four actions (create, update, promote, delete) with required parameters per action. Clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from read-only siblings like get_dashboard.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Read the current rev+layout via get_dashboard first' and explains CAS conflict resolution for updates. Defines when each action is appropriate and how to handle stale revisions.

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

All agent-cold-email 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but pause/pause_all and metrics/campaign_results/list_campaigns have overlapping scopes. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency4/5

Uses snake_case with a mix of verb_noun (list_campaigns) and noun_verb (infrastructure_status), but patterns are predictable. Minor inconsistency between setup_infrastructure and infrastructure_status.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is at the upper bound for a focused server, but the domain (cold email automation) justifies the number. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow.

Completeness4/5

Covers account management, campaigns, leads, threads, infrastructure, webhooks, and dashboards. Missing resume for paused campaigns and delete for campaigns, but core operations are present.

Resources