List playbook version snapshots for the workspace, newest first. A snapshot is taken automatically before every playbook write (regeneration, manual edit, or restore). Each row has _id, createdAt, replacedBy (what kind of write replaced it), and the full playbook text. Use campaignstack_revert_playbook to restore one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | No | Defaults to the API key's workspace |
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: snapshots are created automatically before every write, rows are newest first, and each row includes _id, createdAt, replacedBy, and the full playbook text. This gives the agent a good mental model without contradicting 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?
The description is three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and ordering, the second explains the snapshot mechanism, and the third lists the row fields and points to the revert tool. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (row fields including full playbook text), how snapshots are created, and how to act on the results via campaignstack_revert_playbook. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, workspaceId, is already documented in the schema with 'Defaults to the API key's workspace.' The tool description itself does not add parameter-level guidance, but it does not need to because the schema fully covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.
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: 'List playbook version snapshots for the workspace, newest first.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like campaignstack_get_playbook and campaignstack_revert_playbook by focusing on historical snapshots rather than the current playbook or restoring it.
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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful by explaining that snapshots are taken before every playbook write, and it explicitly points to campaignstack_revert_playbook for restoring a snapshot. It does not enumerate exclusions or multiple alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for history inspection or pre-restore lookup.
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).
