Argorant

Campaign analytics over time

argorant_campaign_analytics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Show one campaign day by day (emails sent, replies, positive replies, bounces and unsubscribes) with totals, rates and the results of every email version. Use it to judge how a campaign or an A/B test is doing. For the current state and launch blockers use argorant_get_campaign, and to compare campaigns use argorant_list_campaigns. totals.reply_rate is the reply rate, counting every reply, out of office and auto replies included, of the people contacted; it is the only reply rate. totals.positive_share_of_replies is the positive replies as a percent of the people who replied. variants shows the results of every version of each email, and best (also given as leader) marks the one with the most positive replies per email sent, or with none yet the highest reply rate (best_by says which). early marks versions with fewer than 200 sends, where differences are mostly chance. Versions marked removed are no longer sent. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#analytics-mailbox-settings-blocklist

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_campaign_analytics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	How many days to show, 1 to 365 (default 30).
`campaign_id`	Yes	The campaign's id, from argorant_list_campaigns.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding interpretation rules instead: reply_rate counts every reply including out-of-office, positive_share_of_replies is a share of repliers, best/leader is chosen by positive replies per send with a reply-rate fallback flagged by best_by, and early marks versions under 200 sends. Missing only notes on time-window/pagination behavior of the daily series, which the output schema partially covers.

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-loads purpose, then routing to alternatives, then metric definitions — a sensible order. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause supplies a semantic rule an agent could otherwise misread; a slightly tighter phrasing of the variants/best block would improve it.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still disambiguates the ambiguous returned fields (reply_rate, positive_share_of_replies, best/leader/best_by, early, removed), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Nothing material for correct invocation or reading 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there (days range 1–365, campaign_id sourced from argorant_list_campaigns), so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Show one campaign day by day") and enumerates the exact metrics returned: sent, replies, positive replies, bounces, unsubscribes, plus totals, rates and per-version results. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (argorant_get_campaign for current state, argorant_list_campaigns for comparison), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 both a positive trigger ("Use it to judge how a campaign or an A/B test is doing") and explicit alternatives with the condition that selects them: get_campaign for current state and launch blockers, list_campaigns for cross-campaign comparison. Nothing 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.