Argorant

Check account and limits

argorant_account

Read-onlyIdempotent

Show the connected Argorant account: its email, workspace role (owner, admin, manager or member), the credits left (contact_credits) and how much of today's daily limits is used. Use it before a paid step to check the balance, such as before argorant_reveal_people or argorant_add_campaign_leads, or when a tool was refused for credits or a limit. It is not a price quote; each paid tool states its own price. Credits pay for revealing people and for adding new people to a campaign. Daily limits are safety limits. They cost nothing and are separate from credits. They reset each day. Checking is free, and the answer's summary says all of this in plain words. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#read-and-preview

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "argorant_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: checking is free, credits and daily limits are distinct pools, daily limits cost nothing and reset each day. It stops short of describing the response shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 core purpose and the paid-step trigger are front-loaded, and the credits-versus-limits explanation is genuinely useful. A few sentences are slightly redundant ('Checking is free, and the answer's summary says all of this in plain words') and the docs link adds length without much decision value.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, that it is free, and how credits differ from daily limits. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly spends no words on parameter syntax.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Show the connected Argorant account') and enumerates exactly what is returned: email, workspace role with its enum values, contact_credits remaining, and daily-limit usage. It also explicitly separates itself from the pricing siblings by stating 'It is not a price quote; each paid tool states its own price.'

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use triggers: before a paid step such as argorant_reveal_people or argorant_add_campaign_leads, or after a tool was refused for credits or a limit. It also states the negative case (not a price quote) and points to the quote tools implicitly, leaving little to inference.

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

All Argorant 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.