Get the workspace's weekly magnet-search schedule: whether it is enabled, the saved topic selection it reuses, and when it was last changed. Each weekly run charges the standard run price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | No | Workspace ID (required for user keys; workspace keys are bound) |
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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond that by warning that each weekly run charges the standard run price, which is useful cost-related behavior an agent should know before acting.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, lists what will be returned, and appends a relevant cost warning. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 read-only getter with one optional parameter, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key returned components and the cost implication. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly route the agent to related sibling tools, but this is not critical for correct invocation.
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?
There is one optional parameter, workspaceId, and the schema already documents it fully with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but given the high schema coverage, no additional explanation is necessary.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets the workspace's weekly magnet-search schedule. It further clarifies the exact contents of the result—enabled state, saved topic selection, and last-changed time—making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_lead_magnet_run or set_lead_magnet_schedule.
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 this is for reading schedule configuration rather than running or modifying it, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_lead_magnet_run or set_lead_magnet_schedule. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative routing guidance.
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).
