Skip to main content
Glama

campaignstack

by io.campaignstack

campaignstack_list_leads_at_node

Read-onlyIdempotent

List leads currently at a specific workflow node. Returns up to 100 leads with their name, headline, company, status, and timestamps. Entries with status 'cancelled' were terminated by the lead router (cancelReason: superseded_by_reply, superseded_by_newer, meeting_booked, stale_expired, workflow_disabled). Use campaignstack_get_workflow_stats to identify nodes of interest.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: the 100-lead cap, which fields are returned, and the special meaning of 'cancelled' status with specific cancel reasons. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. The cancellation semantics are detailed but relevant and not bloated.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, output shape, limits, special status semantics, and how to discover valid node IDs.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that the tool operates on a specific workflow node and directing users to campaignstack_get_workflow_stats to identify valid nodeId values. This gives practical meaning to the single undocumented parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: listing leads currently at a workflow node. It is clear in scope and mentions returned fields, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like campaignstack_get_node_activity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context that this tool lists current leads at a node and provides guidance to use campaignstack_get_workflow_stats to find nodes of interest. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative for similar listing behavior.

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
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set is enormous and generally well-differentiated through detailed cross-referenced descriptions, but several clusters blur together: archive/delete/remove have inconsistent permanence semantics (delete_campaign vs remove_signal_watch vs archive_campaign), create_connection_watch_agent explicitly overlaps with set_account_watcher, and the parallel draft-checkup and playbook-proposal flows (run_draft_checkup/get_draft_checkup/accept_draft_checkup vs propose_playbook_change/get_playbook_proposal/decide_playbook_proposal) present near-identical decision pipelines.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly every tool follows the campaignstack_<verb>_<noun> convention with disciplined get/list pairing and consistent verb choices (create/update/delete/pause/resume). Minor deviations like campaignstack_priority_enrich (adverb+verb) and campaignstack_whoami break the strict verb_noun pattern but are isolated and do not hinder navigation.

Tool Count1/5

223 tools is an extreme surface for any MCP server. Even though each tool maps to a distinct API operation and the underlying platform is broad, the scale far exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch and will overwhelm agents with selection overhead.

Completeness5/5

The surface is exhaustive for the LinkedIn outreach domain: full campaign/workflow/lead-list lifecycles, ICP and persona management, content scheduling and approvals, inbox and messaging, enrichment and integrations, signal watches and exclusions, review queues, playbook versioning, workspace admin, billing, and notifications. Minor gaps like a missing delete_lead or delete_company are explained by shared-data semantics, so no critical dead ends remain.

Resources