campaignstack

campaignstack_import_external_leads

Idempotent

Import every lead of an external provider source into CampaignStack (for Apollo use campaignstack_import_apollo_list). Provenance differs by provider: instantly (a data vendor) lands in the shared lead pool; hubspot (the tenant's own CRM) lands in workspace-scoped private leads. sourceKind picks between a provider lead list, a provider campaign (instantly only), or the whole portal (hubspot only, sourceId "portal"); ids come from campaignstack_list_external_lead_lists / campaignstack_list_external_sequences. Leads are deduplicated by email and LinkedIn URL, available fields (title, company, phone, location) are mapped, and an optional campaignId lands the leads in that campaign's default lead list. Long imports keep running server-side; poll campaignstack_get_external_import_progress for status. Free: no CampaignStack credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`provider`	Yes	Integration provider to import from.
`sourceId`	Yes	Provider-side source id (from campaignstack_list_external_lead_lists or campaignstack_list_external_sequences). Pass "portal" for sourceKind portal.
`campaignId`	No	Optional CampaignStack campaign whose default lead list receives the imported leads.
`sourceKind`	Yes	Whether sourceId is a provider lead list, a provider campaign (instantly only), or the whole portal (hubspot only: every contact).
`sourceName`	No	Display name for progress tracking.
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID (defaults to the bound workspace)

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: provider-specific provenance (shared pool vs workspace private leads), deduplication by email and LinkedIn URL, field mapping, optional campaign routing, and long-running server-side imports with a polling mechanism. This materially helps an agent anticipate side effects and follow-up actions.

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 efficient, front-loading the core purpose and Apollo distinction before covering provenance, sourceKind, deduplication, campaign routing, async behavior, and cost. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the key operational aspects an agent needs: required source context, provider differences, data handling behavior, optional campaign assignment, long-running execution, and the progress-tracking companion tool. Given the tool's complexity, nothing essential is missing, and the lack of an output schema is mitigated by pointing to the progress poll.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: sourceKind maps to provider-specific meanings, sourceId can be 'portal', IDs come from specific list tools, campaignId routes to a campaign's default lead list, and sourceName is for progress tracking. This goes well beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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: 'Import every lead of an external provider source into CampaignStack.' It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting 'for Apollo use campaignstack_import_apollo_list', which removes ambiguity about which import tool to use.

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 names the alternative for Apollo and explains when this tool is appropriate for instantly and hubspot. It also specifies source restrictions (instantly-only campaign sources, hubspot-only portal), where to get source IDs, and the free/no-credits condition, giving the agent clear contextual guidance.

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?