Skip to main content
Glama

Get one campaign

argorant_get_campaign
Read-onlyIdempotent

Show one campaign in full, with its emails and their versions, subsequences, sending mailboxes, progress, reply rates and anything that still stops a launch. Use it before a launch and after every change. To list campaigns use argorant_list_campaigns, for the people use argorant_list_campaign_leads, and for all of a large campaign's mailboxes use argorant_list_campaign_senders. copy_warnings lists text that would go out exactly as written, such as [link], [Name] or TBD, or a variable some contacts lack, and variable_coverage counts the contacts with no value for each variable; those contacts wait at that email and never get a blank. Tell the user these numbers before a launch. Each email lists its variants, the other versions, in the shape argorant_set_campaign_emails takes, and a version with enabled false is kept but no longer sent. progress counts emails sent and left and leads_held, people held back because someone at the same company was already contacted. campaign.reply_rate counts every reply, out of office and auto replies included, of the people contacted; it is the only reply rate. senders_summary counts mailboxes by status and domain, and addresses are listed only up to 25. as_file=true returns the campaign as one sorted JSON text to save and compare with a later copy. 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_get_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_fileNotrue gives the campaign as one JSON text (file.text) to save and compare with an earlier copy.
campaign_idYesThe campaign's id, from argorant_list_campaigns.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: what copy_warnings and variable_coverage mean operationally ('those contacts wait at that email and never get a blank'), that reply_rate includes out-of-office and auto replies, that leads_held reflects same-company suppression, and that senders_summary caps address listing at 25. This is field-level semantics an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and routing are front-loaded and earn their place, but the remainder is a long unpunctuated run of field-by-field explanations packed into two or three giant sentences. Since an output schema already exists, much of the return-value narration (progress, reply_rate, senders_summary) restates structured data and makes the description heavier than it needs to be.

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 broad read tool that aggregates emails, variants, subsequences, senders and derived metrics, the description covers the ambiguous derived fields (reply_rate scope, leads_held, variable_coverage, the 25-address cap) plus a docs link. With an output schema present it need not document return shape further, and nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount beyond the schema by saying the as_file output is 'one sorted JSON text to save and compare with a later copy', which explains the ordering guarantee the schema omits; campaign_id is left entirely to the schema's reference to argorant_list_campaigns.

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 in full') and enumerates the payload it returns: emails and versions, subsequences, sending mailboxes, progress, reply rates and launch blockers. It also names the sibling list tools, so an agent can distinguish it from argorant_list_campaigns and argorant_list_campaign_senders 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 timing guidance ('Use it before a launch and after every change') and routes to the correct alternatives by intent: listing campaigns, viewing people, and viewing all mailboxes of a large campaign. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are present.

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.