campaignstack

campaignstack_explain_draft

Read-only

Why a draft says what it says: each sentence attributed to the piece of configuration that produced it (the offer context, a playbook section, the campaign guidance, an agent's script, the outreach intent, the voice profile, a node's instructions, the lead's own facts), plus the tool and field that changes each one. Every citation is re-checked against the prompt section it names, so an unverifiable one comes back as unattributed rather than as a plausible guess. Call this when a draft reads wrong and you need to know WHICH setting to edit; campaignstack_preview_craft_prompt shows the same prompt for a draft that has not been written yet. Charges mcp_craft credits per call; campaignstack_estimate_cost gives the number before you commit. One model call over a stored draft and its prompt; writes nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entryId`	No	A workflow entry id, e.g. from campaignstack_list_pending_reviews. Resolves to the newest accepted draft for that entry's lead.
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID. REQUIRED for a user key (csu_), which spans every workspace you belong to; omitted for a workspace key (cs_), which is bound to one and ignores this argument. campaignstack_whoami reports which kind of key you are holding and, for a user key, the workspaces it can reach.
`craftAuditLogId`	No	A row id from campaignstack_export_craft_audit.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft`	No
`fixes`	No
`caller`	No
`verdict`	No
`createdAt`	No
`sentences`	No
`craftAuditLogId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "caller": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "not": {}
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "craftAuditLogId": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "not": {}
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "createdAt": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "not": {}
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "number"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "draft": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "not": {}
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "fixes": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "not": {}
+            },
+            {
+              "items": {},
+              "type": "array"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "sentences": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "not": {}
+            },
+            {
+              "items": {},
+              "type": "array"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "not": {}
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses that citations are re-verified against the named prompt section and degrade to 'unattributed' when unverifiable rather than guessing. It also states the cost model (mcp_craft credits per call) and that the operation performs one model call and writes nothing.

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?

Each sentence carries a distinct piece of information: purpose, verification guarantee, when to use it, cost, and side-effect profile. The description is dense but every sentence earns its place, and the opening immediately communicates what the tool returns.

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 100% parameter schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant context: use case, behavior, cost, alternative route, and no-write guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already explains entryId resolution, workspace/key behavior, and craftAuditLogId origin. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names the exact operation: attributing each sentence of a draft to the configuration that produced it and to the tool or field that would change it. It also distinguishes itself from campaignstack_preview_craft_prompt, which serves the pre-write preview use case.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when a draft reads wrong and you need to know WHICH setting to edit') and names the alternative tool with the contrasting condition (draft not yet written). It also adds cost-awareness guidance by pointing to campaignstack_estimate_cost before committing.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?