Skip to main content
Glama

campaignstack

by io.campaignstack
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

campaignstack_list_guidance_versions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Version history for one authored craft text: a campaign's guidance or offer addendum, a signal agent's script, or a workflow node's instructions. Each row is what the field said BEFORE a write, newest first, capped at the last 20 per target. Call this when the user asks what guidance used to say, or before reverting one. Pass a versionId to campaignstack_revert_guidance to put that text back. NOT the workspace playbook: campaignstack_list_playbook_versions / campaignstack_revert_playbook.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesWhich text: campaign_guidance and offer_addendum are keyed by campaignId, agent_script by signal agent id, node_instructions by workflow node id.
targetIdYesThe campaign, signal agent or workflow node id.
workspaceIdNoWorkspace 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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "versions": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "not": {}
+            },
+            {
+              "items": {
+                "additionalProperties": true,
+                "properties": {
+                  "author": {
+                    "anyOf": [
+                      {
+                        "type": [
+                          "string",
+                          "null"
+                        ]
+                      },
+                      {
+                        "type": "null"
+                      }
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "createdAt": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "number",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "replacedBy": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "target": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "targetId": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "text": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "versionId": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  }
+                },
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: rows represent the field's value BEFORE a write, results are ordered newest first, and history is capped at the last 20 per target — a retention limit the agent should know before relying on it for recovery.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: scope definition, row behavior, invocation trigger, and sibling exclusion. The most important information is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 enum, clear target family), an output schema covers return shape, and annotations cover safety, nothing essential is missing. Purpose, scope, ordering, retention cap, when to use, and how to proceed to revert are all covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to compensate. It reinforces the target enum in prose ('campaign's guidance or offer addendum, a signal agent's script, or a workflow node's instructions') but adds little parameter meaning the schema descriptions do not already provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Version history for one authored craft text') and enumerates the exact scope of targets: campaign guidance, offer addendum, signal agent script, or workflow node instructions. It also distinguishes itself from the playbook version tools by name, so an agent can disambiguate without inspecting siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool ('when the user asks what guidance used to say, or before reverting one') and names the sibling alternatives it is NOT ('campaignstack_list_playbook_versions / campaignstack_revert_playbook'). It also chains to the downstream revert action, leaving no inference required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All campaignstack toolsInspect
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