Skip to main content
Glama

campaignstack

by io.campaignstack

campaignstack_like_post

Like a lead's most recent post to warm the relationship through engagement. platform is required (currently "linkedin"). Target can be specified as a profileUrl (LinkedIn profile URL) or a leadId (resolved server-side). If only one LinkedIn account is connected to the workspace it is used automatically; if multiple exist, specify accountId (use campaignstack_list_accounts to find it). Subject to daily post_like budget and business hours gates unless bypassed. When true, bypasses ALL LinkedIn safety limits (daily budget, weekly caps, business hours, account status checks). ⚠️ WARNING: This disables all protections that prevent LinkedIn account restrictions. Use only when you understand the risks and accept that the account may be flagged or restricted by LinkedIn.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by warning about daily post_like budgets, business hours gates, and the fact that bypassing 'disables ALL LinkedIn safety limits.' It explicitly discloses the risk of account restriction or flagging, which is essential for an agent to make a risk-aware decision.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically moves to target resolution, account selection, and finally a prominent risk warning. Every sentence carries useful information, and the warning is appropriately emphasized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The main gap is a structural inconsistency: the input schema declares zero properties while the description names several required/optional inputs. This could confuse an agent about how to invoke the tool. The return value/output is not mentioned, but the absence of an output schema reduces that concern.

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?

Even though the input schema has zero parameters, the description explains the key inputs in prose: platform, profileUrl, leadId, and accountId, plus the bypass behavior. It earns the baseline 4 for zero-param schemas but loses a point because exact parameter names and the bypass flag name are not formally specified, and the prose conflicts with the empty schema.

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: 'Like a lead's most recent post to warm the relationship through engagement.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like comment_on_post or send_message by stating the interaction type and intent.

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?

It provides strong context on when to use the tool and how to select the correct target/account, including the current platform constraint and a pointer to campaignstack_list_accounts for multi-account workspaces. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the use case is clear enough.

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

A3.6/5.0
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