DropTrack

DropTrack Create Draft Campaign

droptrack_create_draft_campaign

Create and read back a complete Draft-status campaign without sending it. Supports customer-owned and linked DropTrack-managed contact lists, persists a required subject/message, exact playlist, active subscribed recipients, creator identity, theme, and settings, and can exclude normalized-email members of linked lists or exact saved recipient snapshots from prior campaigns. Use campaign exclusions for historical no-repeat guarantees. Rejects U+2014 em dashes. Run droptrack_validate_campaign_draft before opening the native Send Test flow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`themeId`	No	Built-in or company-owned active campaign theme ID
`allowMp3`	No	Allow MP3 downloads
`allowWav`	No	Allow WAV downloads
`playlistId`	Yes	Active playlist ID containing the tracks to send
`campaignName`	Yes	Internal name for the campaign
`allowDownload`	No	Allow recipients to download tracks
`contactListId`	Yes	Contact list ID whose active subscribed members become saved draft recipients
`expectedStage`	Yes	Intended DropTrack environment from droptrack_get_runtime_context; use prod only for production
`campaignMessage`	Yes	Required recipient-facing message; U+2014 is rejected
`campaignSubject`	Yes	Required recipient-facing email subject; U+2014 is rejected
`requireFeedback`	No	Require feedback before downloading
`excludeCampaignIds`	No	Prior campaign IDs whose exact saved recipient snapshots must be excluded by normalized email; use this for historical no-repeat guarantees
`excludeContactListIds`	No	Other linked contact list IDs whose normalized-email members must be excluded from this draft audience
`expectedDatabaseFingerprint`	Yes	Exact non-secret database fingerprint returned by droptrack_get_runtime_context

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Structured DropTrack result returned by this tool

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so richly: it creates but does not send, persists a specific set of campaign attributes, supports exclusions by normalized email and saved recipient snapshots, and rejects U+2014 em dashes. This is far more than the annotations imply.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes: the first defines the operation, the second details what is persisted and excluded, and the third gives the validation prerequisite.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 14-parameter complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, exclusion semantics, the em-dash constraint, and the required validation step. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 semantic value by grouping the side effects into concepts like 'active subscribed recipients', 'exact playlist', and 'creator identity', and by clarifying the meaning of the two exclusion parameters with 'normalized-email members' versus 'exact saved recipient snapshots'. Much is a synthesis of the schema, but the grouping and workflow guidance are genuinely useful.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous action: 'Create and read back a complete Draft-status campaign without sending it.' It names the resource, the status, and the key boundary (no send), which clearly distinguishes it from send, validate, and read-only campaign tools.

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 gives actionable guidance: 'Use campaign exclusions for historical no-repeat guarantees' and 'Run droptrack_validate_campaign_draft before opening the native Send Test flow.' It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name a direct alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All DropTrack tools Inspect

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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but several clusters are easy to confuse: get_track_analysis vs get_track_analytics vs get_track_tags, plus analyze_audio/request_track_tagging/auto_tag_tracks overlap in the audio-analysis/tagging space. The descriptions do help separate them, so careful agents can disambiguate, but the naming alone creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the droptrack_ prefix, use snake_case, and follow a verb-first noun pattern, with list for collections and get for single items. Minor inconsistencies exist—add_contact vs create_contact_list, browse vs list, auto_tag_tracks—but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 55 tools this is far beyond the recommended 3-15 range and well over the 25+ threshold. Many tools are near variants of each other, especially company-level vs label-level ads, analytics, and wallet tools, inflating the surface area and making selection harder.

Completeness3/5

The set covers many domains and some workflows are complete, such as album art generation/polling/acceptance/deletion and track tagging request/poll/apply. However, core lifecycle gaps remain: no update or delete for campaigns, contacts, or contact lists, no playlist mutation tools, and AI press-release/bio workflows end at polling without a save or publish step.

DropTrack Create Draft Campaign

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources