campaignstack

campaignstack_list_content_posts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists content posts for a workspace with optional filtering by status, platform, and tags. Tags filter uses OR logic (posts matching ANY of the provided tags are returned). Returns up to 'limit' posts (default 20, max 100) ordered by most recent first. Supports cursor-based pagination: pass the response's nextCursor back as 'cursor' to fetch the next page. Use campaignstack_get_content_post to retrieve full details including media URLs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's nextCursor
`status`	No
`platform`	No
`workspaceId`	No	Defaults to the API key's workspace

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: OR-style tag filtering, default and maximum limits, most-recent-first ordering, and cursor-based pagination with nextCursor. This goes well beyond the structured annotation data.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filter semantics, ordering, pagination, and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence delivers actionable information with no wasted words.

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?

For a list-style read tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential operational details: what is returned, how results are ordered, how pagination works, and how to get fuller entity details. The agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and decide when a different tool is appropriate.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description carries most of the semantic weight. It explains tags OR logic, limit defaults and maximum, cursor mechanics, and that status/platform are optional filters. The remaining parameter (workspaceId) is already described in the schema, so the description compensates well for the low 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 clearly states the action, resource, and scope: 'Lists content posts for a workspace' with optional filters. It also names and distinguishes the sibling tool 'campaignstack_get_content_post' by pointing out that it returns full details including media URLs, making the division of responsibility clear.

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 gives explicit guidance on filters, OR semantics for tags, pagination behavior, and directs the agent to campaignstack_get_content_post when full details are needed. This effectively communicates when to use this list tool versus the get tool.

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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).

Resources

Need Help?