List the workspace's creator roster: people repeatedly running magnet posts, with topics, magnet post counts, and status (candidate/promoted/dismissed). A creator auto-promotes at two independent magnet sightings; promoted creators' future posts skip the relevance gate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| workspaceId | No |
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 the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the auto-promotion rule and the consequence that promoted creators' future posts skip the relevance gate, which is not visible in the schema or 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?
Two dense sentences front-load the core action and immediately specify the returned data. The extra auto-promotion detail earns its place because it clarifies status semantics and downstream behavior. 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 list with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the resource scope, key fields, and an important domain rule. Minor gaps remain around pagination, ordering, and default behavior when status is omitted, but these are not critical for the tool's use.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining the meaning of status values through creator lifecycle context, and 'workspace's' implies workspace scoping. However, it does not explicitly describe how workspaceId or the optional status filter should be used.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the workspace's creator roster.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying that it returns people/creators, their topics, magnet post counts, and statuses, rather than listing posts or magnets.
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?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_lead_magnet_posts or discover_lead_magnets. It provides useful context about creator auto-promotion, but no explicit guidance on selection criteria or exclusions.
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).
