campaignstack

campaignstack_get_warmup_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the email warmup status for a single Google account. Returns provider, status, warmupEmail, score, and daysSinceStart. For MailReach warmup, also returns totalMessagesSent, totalMessagesReceived, and rampupTarget from the last sync. For manual warmup entries, returns a note explaining that no progression data is available. Returns an informational message if no warmup is configured. Use campaignstack_list_workspace_warmups for a workspace-wide overview. Use campaignstack_enable_warmup to start automated warmup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID (defaults to the bound workspace)
`googleAccountId`	Yes	Google account ID to check warmup status for. Use campaignstack_list_integrations to find valid account IDs.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: exact returned fields, provider-specific extra fields, the manual-entry note, and the behavior when no warmup is configured. This is substantial value-add.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose, the next details return fields, and the final two provide alternative-tool routing. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key scope is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields and all noted edge cases (MailReach, manual warmup, no warmup configured). Combined with the annotations, this gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including guidance to use campaignstack_list_integrations for valid account IDs. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond confirming the target is a Google account, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Check the email warmup status for a single Google account.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from workspace-wide warmup listing and from enabling warmup, so an agent can select it correctly even among the large sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: campaignstack_list_workspace_warmups for a workspace-wide overview and campaignstack_enable_warmup to start automated warmup. This gives direct routing guidance without requiring inference.

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

All campaignstack tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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).

Resources

Need Help?