campaignstack

campaignstack_onboard_workspace

Idempotent

Set up a CampaignStack workspace: who the user works for, what that company sells, why it exists, how they write, and who they sell to.

Call this with no arguments FIRST. It returns what CampaignStack already knows, including the employer company resolved from the user's LinkedIn profile and any facts already gathered on it, plus every field you can write and its current value. Read that before you propose anything: your job is to correct and complete what is there, not to describe the company from scratch.

Then call it again with the fields you are confident about. Confidence means you can point to something specific: their profile, their company page, their site, something they told you. When you are not confident about a field, leave it out. An empty field is fixed in ten seconds by the user. A plausible sentence that is wrong gets read into every message the system writes for them, and nobody catches it until a prospect does.

Report back in plain language what you set and what you left empty, so the user can correct you before any of it reaches a message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`voice`	No	How this person writes: sentence length, formality, punctuation habits, phrases they reuse. Describe, never instruct.
`firstIcp`	No	A first ideal customer profile. At least one list is required for it to be written.
`whatWeSell`	No	What the company sells, in one or two plain sentences. Facts only.
`companyName`	No	The company the user works for.
`workspaceId`	No	Defaults to the workspace the extension set up for this key, or the key's workspace.
`whyWeBuiltIt`	No	Why the company exists: the specific thing the founder saw that made it worth building. Omit unless it is concrete and checkable.

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

This is a standout description for behavioral transparency. It reveals that the first call is a read operation returning known facts and current field values, that subsequent calls write, and that incorrect plausible sentences will propagate into messages unnoticed. This goes well beyond the annotations and discloses real consequences of misuse.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, first-call behavior, confidence criteria, risk warning, and reporting requirement. The structure is logical and front-loaded, starting with what the tool does and immediately giving the mandatory first action.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly: it describes what the no-arg call returns, what the agent should do with it, and what final reporting the user expects. Nothing essential is missing for safe and effective use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter well. The description adds valuable field-level guidance by mapping the fields to user/company facts and by instructing the agent to only include fields it can support with evidence. This is meaningful added semantic context beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: setting up a CampaignStack workspace with employer, company facts, voice, and first ICP. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_workspace or get_workspace, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The description gives strong, explicit usage context: call with no arguments first, read what is returned, then call again only with confident fields, and report back what was set or left empty. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the workflow guidance is clear enough that an agent knows exactly when and how to use the tool.

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?