campaignstack

campaignstack_submit_feedback

Submit a feedback report or bug report to the CampaignStack team. Mirrors the in-app feedback widget (feedback-widget.tsx) and writes to the same feedbackReports table and triggers the same email notification. Use category 'bug' for broken functionality, 'feature' for capability requests, 'question' for how-to questions, and 'other' for anything else. Returns the new feedback report ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`route`	Yes	The app route or context where the feedback originates (e.g. '/dashboard/campaigns' or 'mcp-agent')
`message`	Yes	The feedback body text
`category`	Yes	Feedback category: bug (something broken), feature (new capability request), question (how-to), other
`workspaceId`	No	Defaults to the API key's workspace

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool writes to a shared feedbackReports table, triggers an email notification, and returns the new feedback report ID. These are meaningful behavioral consequences for a non-read-only operation. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful side-effect context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The three sentences each earn their place: the core purpose, the mirrored backend behavior, and the category routing guidance. Minor redundancy exists between 'feedback report or bug report' and the later category list, but it does not hurt clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple submission tool with a well-described schema and useful annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what underlying effects it triggers, how to choose categories, and what is returned. It could mention the non-idempotent creation aspect explicitly, but the return of a new feedback report ID already implies it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter meaning is already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the category enum semantics but does not add substantive new meaning for route, message, or workspaceId beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Submit a feedback report or bug report to the CampaignStack team') and further clarifies the mechanism by referencing the in-app feedback widget and the feedbackReports table. This distinguishes the tool from the large sibling set, none of which cover feedback submission.

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 clearly identifies when to use this tool: when a user wants to submit feedback or a bug report to CampaignStack. It also provides explicit category selection guidance for 'bug', 'feature', 'question', and 'other'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool competes for this purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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?