Get ICP match scores for leads. Filter by minimum score to find top matches. Returns paginated array of { leadId, leadName, icpMatchScore, matchedFields } sorted by score descending. Use campaignstack_list_icps to find ICP IDs. High-scoring leads can be added to lists via campaignstack_add_leads_to_list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icpId | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| minScore | No |
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the paginated response shape, the exact fields returned, and descending sort order, which are not available in structured metadata. No behavioral trait contradicts the annotations.
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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, filtering, output format/order, and related tools. There is no repetition or 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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, ordering, pagination, minimum-score filtering, and prerequisite tool for the required parameter. It could mention that scores may need to be generated first via trigger_icp_scoring, but this is not essential to invoking the operation correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially: it maps minScore to the filtering concept, implies limit/cursor through pagination, and directs the agent to list_icps for icpId. It does not explain cursor semantics, limit bounds, or the default value, relying on the schema for those numeric constraints.
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 ('Get') and resource ('ICP match scores for leads'), states the output shape and ordering, and references the related list_icps tool for obtaining ICP IDs. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_lead_score_breakdown and trigger_icp_scoring by focusing on the match-score read operation.
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 embeds workflow context by telling the agent to use campaignstack_list_icps to find ICP IDs and campaignstack_add_leads_to_list for high-scoring leads. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives, but the intended 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).
