Argorant

Block an address or domain

argorant_block

Destructive

Never contact these email addresses or domains again, in every campaign of the workspace or only in the campaigns given in campaign_ids (up to 50). Use it when someone must not be emailed; to take one person out of one campaign use argorant_remove_campaign_lead, and to undo a block use argorant_unblock. Send one value, or up to 5,000 per call as values or as csv text. Matching people waiting in those campaigns stop getting emails at once and are kept out later. dry_run=true only counts the entries that would be added and the people who would be stopped; run it first for a large list and tell the user the numbers. More than 500 new entries are applied in the background, with a job_id to follow in argorant_blocklist. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#analytics-mailbox-settings-blocklist

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_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`csv`	No	CSV text instead of values, up to 5,000 rows.
`value`	No	One email address or domain.
`reason`	No	A short note on why, kept with each entry (default manual).	manual
`values`	No	Up to 5,000 email addresses or domains.
`dry_run`	No	true only counts what would change. Nothing is saved.
`campaign_ids`	No	Block only in these campaigns, up to 50. Leave out to block in every campaign.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: matching people currently waiting in those campaigns stop receiving emails immediately and stay out later, lists over 500 new entries are applied in the background with a job_id tracked via argorant_blocklist, and dry_run only counts and persists nothing. Those side effects and async semantics are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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 the core action and scope, then alternatives, then input modes, then side effects and dry_run guidance — a sensible information ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense and somewhat packed with clauses, but every sentence carries actionable content.

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 destructive, batch-capable mutation with background-job behavior, the description covers scope, limits, side effects on in-flight leads, async thresholds, and the dry_run workflow, while an output schema and full parameter descriptions handle return shape and field-level detail. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that the input is one value or up to 5,000 supplied 'as values or as csv text', which clarifies the mutually exclusive input modes the schema does not enforce across properties. It restates the 50-campaign cap and dry_run meaning, which the schema already documents, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ('Never contact these email addresses or domains again') plus scope (every campaign in the workspace, or only those in campaign_ids, up to 50). It explicitly names the two nearest siblings it is not — argorant_remove_campaign_lead and argorant_unblock — so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when someone must not be emailed'), explicit when-to-use-something-else ('to take one person out of one campaign use argorant_remove_campaign_lead', 'to undo a block use argorant_unblock'), and a prescribed workflow for large lists (run dry_run first and report the numbers). Little is left 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.