Skip to main content
Glama

campaignstack_unlink_lead_profile

Detach a platform profile from a PRIVATE lead into a new standalone lead in the same workspace. Scraped data is never deleted; the profile row is repointed at the new lead. Returns the new lead's id. API-key callers may only unlink on private leads.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leadIdYesPrivate lead id currently holding the profile
platformYesPlatform of the profile being detached
workspaceIdNoDefaults to the API key's workspace

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate the operation is not read-only and not idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating scraped data is never deleted, the profile row is repointed, and the new lead's id is returned. This aligns with annotations, so there is 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three tight sentences: the main action is front-loaded, followed by data-safety behavior, return value, and an API-key constraint. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler.

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?

For a tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effect, data preservation, return value, workspace scope, and caller restriction. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the workspaceId default. The description reinforces workspace scope and the private-lead requirement but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Detach,' and clearly identifies the resource and transformation: moving a platform profile from a PRIVATE lead into a new standalone lead. It is easily distinguished from the sibling link_lead_profile operation.

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 useful context: the operation applies to private leads and API-key callers may only unlink on private leads. However, it does not explicitly name the inverse sibling tool campaignstack_link_lead_profile or state when to use that alternative instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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