Pause ONE campaign: its status → 'paused', so the tick schedules no further steps (already-sent mail is unaffected; there is no resume tool). Input: campaignId. Returns { paused: true }. 404 if not found. Use pause_all to pause every active campaign at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | Yes | The campaign id returned by launch_campaign. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description explains that status becomes 'paused', tick scheduling stops, already-sent mail is unaffected, and there is no resume tool. This adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, which is consistent with the tool's effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: first gives purpose and effect, second specifies input and output, third covers error case and alternative. Front-loaded and efficient with no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, input, output, error case, and alternate tool. Missing are potential side effects (e.g., notifications) or permissions, but these are not critical. Sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter campaignId is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description only restates 'Input: campaignId' without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Pause ONE campaign'. It specifies the status change to 'paused', explains the effect on scheduling, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool pause_all. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context for when to use this tool (single campaign) vs pause_all, notes that already-sent mail is unaffected and that there is no resume tool. Also mentions 404 error if campaign not found. Could be improved by stating when not to use (e.g., if wanting to resume later).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
Covers account management, campaigns, leads, threads, infrastructure, webhooks, and dashboards. Missing resume for paused campaigns and delete for campaigns, but core operations are present.