campaignstack

campaignstack_list_voice_versions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Version history for one language of a voice profile, newest first (last 20). Each row says when it was written, what replaced it (regen, manual_edit, revert) and which situations it covered; the exemplars are not returned, since they are the owner's own messages. Call this when the user asks how a voice profile has changed over time, or before reverting one. Pass a versionId to campaignstack_revert_voice; it does not return the current live profile, use campaignstack_get_conversation_voice for that.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`language`	Yes	ISO 639-1 language of the profile.
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace 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.
`linkedinAccountId`	Yes	LinkedIn account of the person whose voice it is.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`versions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

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": {
+                  "active": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "boolean",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "author": {
+                    "anyOf": [
+                      {
+                        "type": [
+                          "string",
+                          "null"
+                        ]
+                      },
+                      {
+                        "type": "null"
+                      }
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "createdAt": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "number",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "language": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "readableSummary": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "replacedBy": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "situations": {
+                    "anyOf": [
+                      {
+                        "items": {
+                          "type": "string"
+                        },
+                        "type": "array"
+                      },
+                      {
+                        "type": "null"
+                      }
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "version": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "number",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  },
+                  "versionId": {
+                    "type": [
+                      "string",
+                      "null"
+                    ]
+                  }
+                },
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it lists what each row contains (when written, replacement type, situations covered), states that exemplars are omitted, notes the 20-entry limit, and clarifies that it does not return the live profile. This goes well 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 dense but every sentence contributes: it states the purpose, the content of rows, the exclusions, the usage context, and routing to related tools. It is front-loaded with the core function and flows logically, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It covers what is returned, what is not returned, the limit, the usage scenario, and how to route to related tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and every parameter (language, workspaceId, linkedinAccountId) already has a meaningful description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it only reiterates context like 'one language' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (list), resource (version history of a voice profile), scope (one language), and ordering (newest first, last 20). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by noting it does not return the current live profile and points to campaignstack_get_conversation_voice for that, so an agent can differentiate it from 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Call this when the user asks how a voice profile has changed over time, or before reverting one.' It also names the alternative tools and when to use them (e.g., campaignstack_get_conversation_voice for the live profile, campaignstack_revert_voice for reverting). No ambiguity about selection.

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

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

Need Help?