bird_create_audienceCreates an audience (contact list) in Bird — additive, sends no message. Static audiences start empty. Bird API: POST /v1/audiences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name for the audience. | |
| type | No | How members are determined. Only `static` is generally available. | |
| description | No | Longer description of who this audience is. |
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?
The description claims the operation is 'additive,' but annotations set destructiveHint=true, which is a direct contradiction. No other behavioral context (auth, side effects) is provided, so transparency fails.
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?
The description is three concise sentences that include the key behavior, a caveat about static audiences, and the API endpoint. No waste; front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Despite good schema coverage, the description lacks information about return values or side effects, and it contradicts the destructiveHint annotation. This makes the overall picture incomplete for an agent invoking the tool.
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?
Schema descriptions cover all 3 parameters (100%), so the description is not required to explain them. The note that 'Static audiences start empty' adds a small behavioral detail about the type parameter, but does not materially improve semantic understanding.
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 tool creates an audience (contact list) and distinguishes it from creating contacts or messages. The mention of 'additive, sends no message' uniquely identifies its purpose.
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?
The description implies usage by specifying it's for audience creation without sending messages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like bird_create_contact or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: audiences, contacts, messages by channel, templates by channel, and contact properties. Get/list/create operations are clearly separated, with no overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow the consistent bird_<verb>_<resource> pattern, using verbs create/get/list and channel-prefixed resources (e.g., bird_get_email_message, bird_list_whatsapp_templates). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
At 16 tools, the count is just above the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable given the need to cover three message channels and multiple resource types. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The set covers create, get, and list for audiences/contacts, and get/list for messages, but lacks update/delete for audiences/contacts, any send-message capability, and template management beyond listing. These are significant gaps for a messaging platform.