Update a member's role. Via MCP, roles can only be set to 'member'. Granting admin or transferring ownership requires the workspace settings UI. Use campaignstack_list_members to find member IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | Only "member" can be set via MCP | |
| memberId | 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?
Annotations already establish that the call is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: the MCP surface is deliberately limited to the 'member' role and admin/ownership changes are off-platform, clarifying the tool's side-effect boundaries.
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 with no filler. The action comes first, followed by the limitation, then the out-of-band alternative and ID lookup guidance. Every sentence contributes to correct tool use.
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 three-parameter mutation, the description supplies the allowed role, the source for member IDs, and the boundary for admin/ownership actions. It is slightly incomplete in not indicating how to source workspaceId or what a successful update returns, but annotations and schema already cover the safety profile.
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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by telling the agent to use campaignstack_list_members to find member IDs and by reinforcing that role can only be 'member'. The workspaceId parameter still relies on the agent's existing workspace context, but the non-obvious parameters are addressed.
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-resource pair ('Update a member's role') and immediately scopes the tool with a hard constraint: via MCP roles can only be set to 'member'. It also distinguishes this tool from admin/ownership changes by stating those require the workspace settings UI, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and does not do.
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 says when this tool is appropriate (setting a role to 'member'), when it is not (admin grants and ownership transfers require the UI), and how to satisfy the memberId parameter (use campaignstack_list_members). This is clear routing to alternatives and prerequisites.
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).
