Argorant

Duplicate a campaign

argorant_duplicate_campaign

Copy a campaign as a new draft, named like the original plus (copy) unless you pass a name. Use it to reuse a campaign's emails and settings for new people; to start from nothing use argorant_create_campaign. It copies the settings (sending days and hours, time zone, limits, gaps, the unsubscribe line, tags and folder), every email with its versions and the personal line setup, and with include_subsequences=true the subsequences, switched off. It never copies the people, the sending mailboxes or the results, so add people and mailboxes before a launch. Nothing is sent. Returns the new campaign's campaign_id. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#campaigns

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_duplicate_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Name of the copy. Default is the original name plus (copy).
`campaign_id`	Yes	The campaign's id, from argorant_list_campaigns.
`include_subsequences`	No	true also copies the subsequences, switched off

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-destructive write; the description goes much further, enumerating exactly what is copied (settings, every email with versions, personalization setup, optionally subsequences) and what is not (people, mailboxes, results). It also reassures that 'nothing is sent' and that subsequences arrive switched off, which prevents a misfire. Slightly short of 5 only because it doesn't mention any permission or quota implications of creating a new draft.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and the naming rule, then usage routing, then the copy manifest, then caveats, then the return value and a docs link. Every sentence carries distinct information and the enumeration of copied versus non-copied artifacts is efficient rather than padded.

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 duplicate operation with three parameters, the description covers naming, scope of the copy, exclusions, safety ('nothing is sent'), and even the returned campaign_id despite an output schema existing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the name default and the include_subsequences meaning; the description largely restates both rather than adding new syntax or constraints. Its added value is confined to clarifying that copied subsequences come across disabled, which is a small increment over the structured fields.

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 ('Copy a campaign as a new draft') and immediately pins down the naming behavior, which is the one non-obvious outcome of the operation. It explicitly distinguishes itself from argorant_create_campaign, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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 both sides of the decision: reuse an existing campaign's emails and settings for new people, versus 'to start from nothing use argorant_create_campaign'. The alternative is named and the selecting condition is stated, leaving nothing 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.