List all workflows for a campaign. Returns workflow IDs, names, status, enabled flag, and node count. Use the returned workflowId values with campaignstack_get_workflow to inspect workflow details, or campaignstack_trigger_workflow to execute a workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | Yes |
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 mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the exact output shape (summary fields, not full workflow details) and the role of workflowId in follow-up calls. No pagination or error behavior is mentioned, but the simple read-only nature makes this acceptable.
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?
Three sentences, each substantive: scope, return contract, and downstream usage. No filler or repetition, and the key action is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: the input context, the fields present in the response, and what to do with the returned IDs. The sibling set is huge, but the description's explicit references to get_workflow and trigger_workflow prevent confusion.
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?
The schema has one required campaignId parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description contextualizes it as 'for a campaign,' but does not explain where the ID comes from or its format. The parameter name and tool name make the meaning recoverable, so the description is minimally adequate but not richly compensating.
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?
States a specific action ('List all workflows for a campaign') and describes the returned fields (IDs, names, status, enabled flag, node count). The downstream references to get_workflow and trigger_workflow make clear this is the list entry point, distinct from detail or execution tools.
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?
Clearly scopes the use case to listing workflows for a campaign and tells the agent what to do with the returned workflowIds: use get_workflow for details or trigger_workflow for execution. It does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use condition, but the downstream routing provides sufficient direction.
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).
