Moves a 'scheduled' content post back to 'draft' status, clearing the scheduled time. Use campaignstack_schedule_content_post to reschedule it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 goes beyond the annotations by stating the concrete state transition and that the scheduled time is cleared. With annotations already indicating a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, this is useful behavioral context without 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?
Two short sentences carry the action, the effect, and the relevant sibling alternative with no filler or repeated schema facts. Information is front-loaded: the primary effect comes first, routing second.
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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering idempotence and safety, the description adequately covers the state change and the next step. It does not specify return values or error behavior, but those are not clearly necessary for such a simple operation.
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?
The schema has no description for contentPostId, so the description has to compensate; it only implies that the ID identifies the scheduled content post being unscheduled. The single parameter's purpose is inferable from the resource noun, but explicit guidance on how to obtain the ID is absent.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it moves a content post from 'scheduled' to 'draft' and states that the scheduled time is cleared. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like schedule_content_post, approve_content_post, or delete_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 first sentence establishes when to use it: when a scheduled post should be reverted to draft. The second sentence names the exact alternative for the opposite operation, campaignstack_schedule_content_post, giving an agent explicit routing guidance.
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).
