List Apollo lists (labels) available in the connected Apollo account. Returns each list's id, name, and estimated contact count. Use the returned id values with campaignstack_import_apollo_list to import contacts. Requires a connected Apollo integration. Use campaignstack_connect_apollo first if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | No | Workspace ID (defaults to the bound workspace) |
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 communicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's safety burden is lower. It adds practical behavioral context by stating the integration prerequisite and describing the output fields, which is useful beyond the structured 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then return value, then downstream usage and prerequisite. Every sentence contributes either to selection, invocation, or follow-up actions, with no filler.
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 read-only listing tool with a well-documented single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, what must be true before calling it, and how to use the results.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single optional workspaceId parameter is already fully described in the input schema as 'Workspace ID (defaults to the bound workspace)'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema carries the information.
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 names a specific action ('List Apollo lists'), the resource ('available in the connected Apollo account'), and the returned fields ('id, name, and estimated contact count'). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling import tool by explaining the lists are meant for later import.
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?
Provides clear context: requires a connected Apollo integration and tells the agent to use campaignstack_connect_apollo first if needed. It also directs the returned id values to campaignstack_import_apollo_list. It does not explicitly exclude alternative list tools, but the Apollo-specific wording and prerequisite make the intended usage clear.
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).
