Skip to main content
Glama

Add people to a campaign

add_leads_to_campaign
DestructiveIdempotent

Add up to 100 people to one of your campaigns by LinkedIn profile URL. Each person goes through the same checks as a dashboard import: invalid URLs, your do-not-contact list, the campaign's exclusion list and duplicates are refused and reported per person. If the campaign passes already-connected people to a Nurture campaign, those people go there instead (moved_to_campaign_id in their result); anyone that campaign will not take, for example someone already in another campaign, is refused with that campaign named. Nothing happens on LinkedIn at the moment you call this. ZenMode's campaign engine works through each campaign later, inside your daily and weekly limits, business hours and pacing. If the account is restricted, paused for the week, cooling down or switched off, the call is refused with the reason and when it lifts, and nothing changes. If the account has only used today's allowance, the change is accepted and the response says it will be worked through once the limit resets. Calls that only stop outreach (remove, pause, exclude, not interested) are never refused. An idempotency_key makes a retried call a no-op.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leadsYes
campaign_idYesThe campaign id, from list_campaigns.
idempotency_keyNoOptional. A unique string you make up for this exact change (8 to 128 letters, digits, - _ . :). If the call is repeated with the same key and the same arguments within 24 hours, nothing happens twice and the first result is returned again. Use a fresh key for every new change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: deferred execution ('nothing happens on LinkedIn at the moment you call this'), per-person refusal reporting, Nurture rerouting with moved_to_campaign_id, refusal-with-reason when the account is restricted/paused/cooling/off, and the accepted-but-queued case when the daily allowance is spent. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and count limit, then layered behavior. It's long and the account-state sentence is dense, but every clause carries information an agent needs; little filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the only return value an agent must act on (moved_to_campaign_id) and the refusal semantics. Combined with the execution-delay disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds the batch ceiling and the URL-addressing rule on top of the schema, and explains what the idempotency key actually guarantees on retry. It doesn't describe the optional per-lead fields (name, title, company, location), which remain undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the key constraint ('up to 100 people... by LinkedIn profile URL'), and distinguishes itself from create_campaign and remove_leads_from_campaign by framing it as an enrollment rather than a mutation of the campaign itself.

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?

Gives clear context: bulk enrollment through the same validation as a dashboard import, with removal/pause/exclusion explicitly carved out as separate operations. It never names the sibling tools (e.g. use remove_leads_from_campaign or set_contact_outreach_state instead), so routing is implied rather than instructed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.