Rejects a 'pending_approval' content post back to 'draft' status with a reason. Increments the revision count (max 10 revisions). Use campaignstack_update_content_post to edit the post, then campaignstack_submit_content_for_approval to resubmit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| contentPostId | 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 behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the revision count increment and the 10-revision maximum. Since annotations already signal mutation and non-idempotency, the description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects, though it doesn't specify what happens when the max is reached.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences convey the action, state transition, required reason, side effect, and subsequent workflow with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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?
The description is complete enough for a simple two-parameter state transition tool: it states the input status, output status, revision side effect, and suggested next actions. Minor gaps around max-revision behavior and response/error semantics prevent a perfect score.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'reason' is the rejection rationale, but it does not explicitly define 'contentPostId' role or constraints beyond the schema's minLength. The parameter names are self-explanatory, giving partial but not full compensation.
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 a specific action ('Rejects'), a specific resource ('content post'), and the exact state transition ('pending_approval' to 'draft'). It also specifies that a reason is required, which differentiates it from related sibling tools like approve_content_post and update_content_post.
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 explicitly names the precondition ('pending_approval' content post) and gives a clear follow-up workflow: use campaignstack_update_content_post to edit, then campaignstack_submit_content_for_approval to resubmit. This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool and what to do instead or next.
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).
