campaignstack

campaignstack_add_lead_to_external_list

Idempotent

Add one lead to an external provider's lead list (provider-parameterized: instantly, hubspot or clay). For clay the target is a registered Clay table: the push goes to the table's webhook source fire-and-forget (no provider lead id comes back, a campaignstack_dedupe_key field rides along for table-side dedup) and leads with only a LinkedIn URL qualify. Otherwise the lead is created by email on the provider side. Neither starts any outreach, unlike campaignstack_add_lead_to_sequence: the contact just becomes available in the provider (e.g. to attach to a campaign later). Duplicate adds to the same list are idempotent successes (status already_present). Set skipIfInWorkspace to skip leads that already exist anywhere in the provider workspace. Free: no CampaignStack credits. Returns status: added, already_present, skipped_no_email (lead has no email), or error (e.g. INTEGRATION_NOT_CONNECTED, LEAD_NOT_FOUND). Use campaignstack_list_external_lead_lists for list ids. For CampaignStack's OWN lead lists use campaignstack_add_leads_to_list instead (inside a workflow, the integration:add_to_list node also accepts provider campaignstack).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`leadId`	Yes
`listId`	Yes	Provider-side lead list id (from campaignstack_list_external_lead_lists).
`provider`	Yes	Integration provider that owns the lead list.
`leadSource`	No	Lead source table (default: global). Private leads are workspace-scoped CSV imports.
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID (required for user keys; workspace keys are bound)
`skipIfInWorkspace`	No	Skip the lead if its email already exists anywhere in the provider workspace, in any campaign or list.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / workspaceId / description

Previous value: -"Workspace ID (defaults to the bound workspace)"New value: +"Workspace ID (required for user keys; workspace keys are bound)"

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral detail beyond annotations such as clay's fire-and-forget push semantics, the absence of a provider lead id, the campaignstack_dedupe_key behavior, idempotent duplicate handling via already_present, skipIfInWorkspace semantics, and free credit usage. It also enumerates return statuses and example errors, and does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long, but it carries a high density of necessary edge-case and routing information that would otherwise be unavailable to the agent. It is front-loaded with the primary action and provider set, though it could benefit from structural separation such as bullets.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing return statuses and error examples. It also covers provider differences, qualification rules, idempotence, free usage, and cross-tool references, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is already high at 83%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining provider-specific behavior for clay, clarifying that listId is a provider-side id from campaignstack_list_external_lead_lists, and detailing how skipIfInWorkspace behaves. The exact source or type of leadId is implied rather than explicitly clarified, so it does not receive a 5.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Add one lead to an external provider's lead list' with explicit providers instantly, hubspot, or clay. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by name, including campaignstack_add_lead_to_sequence and campaignstack_add_leads_to_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: it notes that unlike campaignstack_add_lead_to_sequence, adding to an external list does not start outreach, and it directs users to campaignstack_add_leads_to_list for CampaignStack's own lead lists. It also tells the agent to use campaignstack_list_external_lead_lists to obtain list ids.

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The set is enormous and generally well-differentiated through detailed cross-referenced descriptions, but several clusters blur together: archive/delete/remove have inconsistent permanence semantics (delete_campaign vs remove_signal_watch vs archive_campaign), create_connection_watch_agent explicitly overlaps with set_account_watcher, and the parallel draft-checkup and playbook-proposal flows (run_draft_checkup/get_draft_checkup/accept_draft_checkup vs propose_playbook_change/get_playbook_proposal/decide_playbook_proposal) present near-identical decision pipelines.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly every tool follows the campaignstack_<verb>_<noun> convention with disciplined get/list pairing and consistent verb choices (create/update/delete/pause/resume). Minor deviations like campaignstack_priority_enrich (adverb+verb) and campaignstack_whoami break the strict verb_noun pattern but are isolated and do not hinder navigation.

Tool Count1/5

223 tools is an extreme surface for any MCP server. Even though each tool maps to a distinct API operation and the underlying platform is broad, the scale far exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch and will overwhelm agents with selection overhead.

Completeness5/5

The surface is exhaustive for the LinkedIn outreach domain: full campaign/workflow/lead-list lifecycles, ICP and persona management, content scheduling and approvals, inbox and messaging, enrichment and integrations, signal watches and exclusions, review queues, playbook versioning, workspace admin, billing, and notifications. Minor gaps like a missing delete_lead or delete_company are explained by shared-data semantics, so no critical dead ends remain.

Resources

Need Help?