Skip to main content
Glama

campaignstack

by io.campaignstack

campaignstack_enrich_company_info

Enrich a company's firmographics (industry, employee count, founding year, description, website, phone, location) through a connected enrichment provider (provider-parameterized, default apollo; clay runs the routine named by clayRoutineId and polls for the result). Single company. Company data is shared across the platform, so the lookup fills only the fields that are still empty and never overwrites first-party data. Free: the tenant pays the provider directly, so no CampaignStack credits are charged. Returns status: enriched (with fieldsWritten), not_found (no provider match), or error (e.g. INTEGRATION_NOT_CONNECTED, INTEGRATION_KEY_INVALID, INTEGRATION_RATE_LIMITED, COMPANY_NOT_FOUND). Requires a connected integration for the provider — use campaignstack_connect_apollo first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerNoEnrichment provider (default: apollo). clay runs the routine given in clayRoutineId and polls for the result.
companyIdYesCompany ID to enrich (from campaignstack_get_lead or campaignstack_list_companies).
workspaceIdNoWorkspace ID (required for user keys; workspace keys are bound)
clayRoutineIdNoClay only, required with provider clay: the Clay routine id to run.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / workspaceId / description
      Previous value: -"Workspace ID (defaults to the bound workspace)"New value: +"Workspace ID (required for user keys; workspace keys are bound)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it never overwrites first-party data and only fills empty fields, it charges no CampaignStack credits, it polls for the provider result in the clay path, and it enumerates the possible return statuses and error codes. This fully discloses side effects and external dependencies.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: fields, provider behavior, overwrite semantics, pricing, return contract, and prerequisite are all covered without repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the caller receives, and it does so thoroughly: status values, fieldsWritten, not_found, error categories, and prerequisite integration failures. Combined with the side-effect and pricing details, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying the default provider, how clay consumes clayRoutineId, the polling behavior, and the prerequisite of a connected integration. It does not add much for workspaceId, but the schema already describes it adequately.

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 verb and resource: 'Enrich a company's firmographics' and lists the exact fields addressed, distinguishing it from the sibling campaignstack_enrich_lead_contact_info. It also clarifies scope with 'Single company' and names the provider param, so an agent can select it accurately.

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 clear usage context: it requires a connected integration, names the prerequisite tool explicitly ('use campaignstack_connect_apollo first'), and explains provider choices. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling enrichment tools, but the 'Single company' and firmographics focus make the intended use obvious.

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

All campaignstack toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set is enormous and generally well-differentiated through detailed cross-referenced descriptions, but several clusters blur together: archive/delete/remove have inconsistent permanence semantics (delete_campaign vs remove_signal_watch vs archive_campaign), create_connection_watch_agent explicitly overlaps with set_account_watcher, and the parallel draft-checkup and playbook-proposal flows (run_draft_checkup/get_draft_checkup/accept_draft_checkup vs propose_playbook_change/get_playbook_proposal/decide_playbook_proposal) present near-identical decision pipelines.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly every tool follows the campaignstack_<verb>_<noun> convention with disciplined get/list pairing and consistent verb choices (create/update/delete/pause/resume). Minor deviations like campaignstack_priority_enrich (adverb+verb) and campaignstack_whoami break the strict verb_noun pattern but are isolated and do not hinder navigation.

Tool Count1/5

223 tools is an extreme surface for any MCP server. Even though each tool maps to a distinct API operation and the underlying platform is broad, the scale far exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch and will overwhelm agents with selection overhead.

Completeness5/5

The surface is exhaustive for the LinkedIn outreach domain: full campaign/workflow/lead-list lifecycles, ICP and persona management, content scheduling and approvals, inbox and messaging, enrichment and integrations, signal watches and exclusions, review queues, playbook versioning, workspace admin, billing, and notifications. Minor gaps like a missing delete_lead or delete_company are explained by shared-data semantics, so no critical dead ends remain.

Resources