List content posts in a date range for calendar view. Returns posts that are scheduled or published within the given timeframe. Timestamps are Unix milliseconds. Use with campaignstack_get_content_post for full post details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endMs | Yes | ||
| startMs | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | No | Defaults to the API key's 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add useful behavioral context. It does so by scoping results to scheduled/published posts, specifying Unix millisecond timestamps, and signaling that this endpoint returns summary-level calendar data rather than full post details.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return scope/units, followed by the companion-tool pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.
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 list with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, what inputs mean, and how to get richer details. It omits pagination/sorting, which could matter for large date ranges, but the core invocation guidance is complete enough.
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?
Only workspaceId has a schema description (33% coverage), so the description must compensate for startMs/endMs semantics. It adds that the inputs form a date range and that timestamps are Unix milliseconds, while the parameter names make the start/end roles clear. It could state inclusivity/exclusivity, but the essential meaning is covered.
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 verb and resource ('List content posts in a date range for calendar view') and adds the status filter of scheduled or published posts. This is clearly distinct from the sibling campaignstack_list_content_posts and pairs with campaignstack_get_content_post for detail lookup.
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?
It establishes the intended use case (calendar view over a date range) and tells the agent to follow up with campaignstack_get_content_post for full post details. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives such as campaignstack_list_content_posts, but the context is clear enough.
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).
