Enable or disable a workflow. Enabling activates the workflow (status becomes active, the graph is validated, and initial sourcing starts); disabling pauses it. When enabled, the workflow will process leads according to its node configuration. Use campaignstack_get_workflow to inspect the current node configuration first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | ||
| workflowId | 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 mark this as mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: enabling validates the graph, starts initial sourcing, and causes the workflow to process leads, while disabling pauses rather than deletes. This is consistent with the annotations and gives the agent useful expectations about side effects.
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 sentences with no fluff: the core enable/disable action comes first, followed by behavioral consequences, then a practical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place and the structure supports quick agent comprehension.
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 two-parameter boolean toggle, the description covers the key side effects: graph validation, initial sourcing on enable, pausing on disable, and ongoing lead processing. It omits return values and error conditions, and there is no output schema, but the information needed to invoke correctly is present.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the semantic weight. It clearly explains the enabled boolean as activate versus pause, and implicitly ties the operation to workflowId. It doesn't specify ID format or retrieval steps, but with only two simple parameters this is adequate.
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 opens with a specific operation: 'Enable or disable a workflow.' It then clarifies exactly what each state does: enabling activates the workflow with graph validation and initial sourcing, while disabling pauses it. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic workflow updates and one-shot trigger tools.
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 gives clear context about when to use the tool: to activate or pause a workflow, with concrete behavioral consequences. It also provides a useful prerequisite by recommending campaignstack_get_workflow to inspect node configuration first. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_workflow, but the usage context is clear enough for a simple toggle.
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).
