List all ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) definitions for a campaign. Returns ICP IDs with criteria summary including target titles, industries, seniorities, and score threshold. Use the returned icpId values with campaignstack_get_icp_scores to view lead match scores, or campaignstack_trigger_icp_scoring to run scoring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | Yes |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the shape of the returned criteria summary (target titles, industries, seniorities, score threshold) and the intended follow-up actions. This is useful context beyond 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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second describes the return value, and the third provides downstream usage. Front-loaded and free of 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 simple one-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, return content, and follow-up tool usage. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but the annotations cover safety and the schema is trivial, so the overall context is adequate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain campaignId beyond the generic phrase 'for a campaign.' The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantics about how to obtain the ID, expected format, or behavior for missing/invalid values.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List all ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) definitions for a campaign.' It also clarifies the return payload (ICP IDs with criteria summary), and the downstream relationship to get_icp_scores and trigger_icp_scoring, making it distinguishable from related ICP tools.
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?
Provides clear context on what the tool returns and how to chain it with campaignstack_get_icp_scores and campaignstack_trigger_icp_scoring. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus ICP create/update/delete tools, so it falls just short of full alternative-selection 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).
