Disconnect (remove) an integration by provider. Permanently deletes the integration record and its stored credentials. Valid providers: apollo, instantly, clay. Use campaignstack_list_integrations to see which integrations are connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Integration provider to disconnect | |
| 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?
Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true; the description adds the important specific that the integration record and stored credentials are permanently deleted. This gives the agent a concrete understanding of what is destroyed beyond the bare annotation.
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 short, front-loaded sentences: what it does, the destructive consequence, valid providers, and a helpful pointer to the list tool. No filler.
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 destructive tool with a rich schema, most necessary context is present. However, the inaccurate provider list weakens completeness: an agent cannot reliably tell which providers are actually supported, and there is no mention of what happens when the provider is not connected. A clarifying note about the optional workspaceId would also help.
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 documents all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's provider list contradicts the schema enum by omitting 'hubspot'. This can mislead an agent into thinking hubspot is invalid, and it does not clarify the optional workspaceId behavior.
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 uses a specific verb ('Disconnect (remove)') and names the resource ('an integration') with the exact side effect: permanently deletes the integration record and stored credentials. It is clearly distinct from the connect_* and list_integrations siblings.
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?
It orients the agent by naming the valid providers and points to campaignstack_list_integrations for discovering connected integrations. It does not explicitly list when-not conditions or alternative connect tools, but the usage context is clear.
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).
