campaignstack

campaignstack_list_pending_reviews

Read-onlyIdempotent

List pending workflow review actions requiring human approval. Returns entries with lead details (including leadLinkedInUrl), crafted content, aiReasoning, aiSources (which provided context the draft drew on, e.g. post, signal, experience, web; null for older drafts), conversationHistory (the prior thread with the lead, sender self/lead, null for cold opens), campaign/workflow context, and a reviewContext discriminated union: type "post_comment" includes commentText, postContent, postUrl, postAuthorName, postUnavailable (true when the post was deleted on LinkedIn) (when triggered by a post comment signal); type "campaign" for regular campaign workflow reviews; null when context cannot be determined. bookedMeeting (non-null when the calendar booking chain already booked a meeting from a link the lead sent) means the draft under review is that meeting's confirmation: the booking is done, rejecting the draft stops the message but never cancels the meeting. reviewTags marks priority items (e.g. meeting_booked); tagged entries are pinned at the top of the first page ahead of the FIFO queue - review them first. Use campaignstack_approve_review, campaignstack_reject_review, or campaignstack_edit_and_approve_review to act on entries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`accountId`	No	Scope to drafts sent by one identity (linkedinAccounts id, from campaignstack_list_accounts). A filtered page may hold fewer than `limit` items; keep paging by cursor.
`workspaceId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: FIFO ordering, pinned priority tags, null semantics for old drafts and cold opens, the reviewContext discriminated union, and the important caveat that rejecting a booked-meeting draft never cancels the meeting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but dense, and the purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence adds necessary detail about return fields, edge cases, or follow-up actions, though the single-paragraph format with many nested parentheticals is harder to scan than bulleted structure would be.

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 that there is no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the returned entries, the reviewContext union, null cases, priority ordering, and downstream action tools. For a list tool of moderate parameter complexity, this is nearly complete, with only minor reliance on parameter names for workspaceId and cursor.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25%, covering only accountId, yet the description does not explain workspaceId, limit, or cursor semantics. It mentions 'first page' and FIFO ordering but provides no parameter-level guidance, so it does not compensate for the low schema 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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'List pending workflow review actions requiring human approval.' This clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings like approve_review, reject_review, and edit_and_approve_review.

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 tells the agent to use this tool for listing pending reviews and explicitly names the sibling tools to act on entries. It also notes that tagged priority entries should be reviewed first. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with campaignstack_count_pending_reviews or stating when not to use this 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?