Connect an Instantly.ai account by providing an API key. Validates the key against the Instantly API and stores the integration. Returns success: true when the key is valid and the integration is connected. Returns success: false (with integrationId still created) when the key fails validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | No | Workspace ID (defaults to the bound workspace) |
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?
Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavior: the tool validates the key, stores the integration, and returns success true/false. It also discloses a non-obvious nuance—when validation fails, success is false but an integrationId is still created. This is valuable context for an agent deciding whether to retry or report an error.
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 focused sentences: what it does, how it validates, and what it returns. Every sentence adds essential information, and the most important action is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.
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 two-parameter integration tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: validation, storage, and both success and failure return semantics. The unusual failure case is also explained, so an agent can set proper expectations when calling this 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?
The schema describes workspaceId but not apiKey, so description coverage is only 50%. The description adds that apiKey is used for validation, which helps, but it does not explain how to obtain the key or any additional constraints beyond the schema's minLength. This is adequate but not rich.
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 specific action: connect an Instantly.ai account using an API key and validate it against the Instantly API. It distinguishes this tool from sibling connect tools like campaignstack_connect_apollo and campaignstack_connect_hubspot by naming the exact platform.
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 makes the intended use clear: connecting an Instantly account by supplying a valid API key. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is evident from the tool name and description, especially among other integration-connect tools.
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.
Many tools share the same verb prefix (create_, list_, update_, get_) across closely related resources, so pairs like add_lead_to_external_list vs add_lead_to_sequence, create_signal_agent vs create_signal_watch, and approve_review vs approve_content_post can be confused. The descriptions are unusually detailed and cross-referenced, which mitigates but does not eliminate the ambiguity inherent in a 282-tool surface.
Virtually every tool follows the campaignstack_verb_noun snake_case pattern, which is highly predictable. Minor deviations exist: destructive operations mix remove_ and delete_ (remove_lead_list vs delete_campaign), AI generation uses both craft_ and generate_, and the seo_/search_console_ subdomains introduce a second prefix convention.
282 tools is an extreme mismatch by any reasonable standard, exceeding the 50+ threshold by more than 5x. Even for a full B2B outreach platform, this surface is far too large and would be better consolidated into higher-level operations or grouped sub-servers.
The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering campaigns, workflows, leads, content, ads, SEO, integrations, billing, and more with CRUD-level depth. Minor gaps remain: no single-ICP getter, no direct pause/delete for search watches, and no explicit delete for ad campaigns (only archive via update).
