campaignstack

campaignstack_update_signal_agent

Idempotent

Update a signal agent's configuration. Only provided fields are updated. Can change name, response mode (auto_send / review_first), observing account list (accountIds), acting account list (actAccountIds), the agent playbook (what to do at each stage of the thread, never how to sound), or public reply configuration. Account lists are kind-restricted: connection-watch and message agents are permanently bound to the account they watch (accountIds/actAccountIds are rejected with AGENT_POOL_LOCKED); group watch agents accept exactly one observing account (the group member; GROUP_READ_POOL_SINGLE otherwise). Use campaignstack_list_signal_agents to find agent IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`agentId`	Yes
`playbook`	No
`accountIds`	No
`responseMode`	No
`silenceHours`	No
`actAccountIds`	No
`publicReplyConfig`	No
`followUpDelaysHours`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / followUpDelaysHours

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / playbook

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 6000,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / silenceHours

Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 720,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses partial-update behavior, permanent account-binding restrictions with exact error codes (AGENT_POOL_LOCKED, GROUP_READ_POOL_SINGLE), and clarifies playbook semantics ('never how to sound'). Annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness, so this is solid additional context, though it doesn't discuss side effects of updating account lists or response mode.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, partial-update rule, field enumeration, restrictions, and ID lookup pointer. Information is grouped logically and front-loaded; no filler.

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 9-parameter update tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the main fields, constraints, and error paths well. The gaps are minor: silenceHours and followUpDelaysHours are not explained and the response shape is not described, but the property names and annotations carry some of that weight.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining name, responseMode enum values, accountIds/actAccountIds restrictions, playbook intent, and public reply configuration. It leaves silenceHours and followUpDelaysHours to their fairly self-descriptive names, and publicReplyConfig's map structure is not detailed.

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?

States the exact operation and resource: 'Update a signal agent's configuration,' then enumerates the specific changeable fields. This clearly differentiates it from create/delete/pause/get/list siblings, and even points to campaignstack_list_signal_agents for discovering agent IDs.

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?

Gives clear partial-update semantics ('only provided fields are updated') and tells the agent how to find the required agentId. It doesn't explicitly enumerate when to prefer this over create_signal_agent or pause/resume, but the boundaries are obvious and no alternative is misleading.

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?