Pause a lead signal watch: the daily refresh stops, the record and its history stay. Resume with campaignstack_resume_signal_watch. Use campaignstack_list_signal_watches to find watch IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watchId | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | 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?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: pausing stops daily refreshes but preserves the record and history, and the operation is resumable. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, with no contradiction.
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 short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the behavior, name the resume counterpart, and give the ID lookup path. The core effect is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.
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 state-change tool, the description covers the action's effect, non-destructiveness, resumption path, and how to discover the watchId. The only notable gap is the absence of any guidance on workspaceId, but the tool is otherwise well-specified.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by telling the agent to use campaignstack_list_signal_watches to find watch IDs. However, it adds no semantic guidance for workspaceId, so one of the two required parameters remains unexplained.
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 clearly states the verb 'Pause', the resource 'lead signal watch', and the exact effect: the daily refresh stops while the record and history remain. It also differentiates from resuming and removing by describing the non-destructive nature of pausing.
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?
It explicitly names campaignstack_resume_signal_watch for resuming and campaignstack_list_signal_watches for finding watch IDs, which gives clear operational context. It does not explicitly contrast with remove_signal_watch, but the 'record and history stay' phrasing implies the alternative.
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).
