Dismiss a magnet candidate so it stops appearing in the candidate list. Dismissal is per workspace and does not affect other workspaces that found the same post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| junctionId | Yes | Candidate junction ID from campaignstack_list_lead_magnet_posts | |
| workspaceId | No |
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 declare idempotency and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: dismissal is per workspace and does not affect other workspaces discovering the same post. This helps an agent understand the cross-workspace isolation semantics without contradicting 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary effect is front-loaded, and the workspace scoping clarification is provided immediately after. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 simple, state-changing tool with idempotency and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: what it does, the outcome, and the workspace scoping. It could additionally mention reversibility, but given the annotations and simple parameter set, nothing critical is missing.
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 describes junctionId as originating from campaignstack_list_lead_magnet_posts, but workspaceId has no schema description. The description's 'per workspace' statement indirectly hints at workspaceId's role, but it does not explicitly document the parameter or its optionality. At 50% schema coverage, the description provides only partial compensation.
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 states a specific verb ('Dismiss'), resource ('magnet candidate'), and the concrete outcome ('stops appearing in the candidate list'). It also clarifies the workspace-scoped nature, distinguishing this post-level dismissal from related tools like dismiss_lead_magnet_creator.
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 for when to use the tool: when a magnet candidate post should be removed from the candidate list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the effect and scope are unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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).
