Argorant

Answer a reply

argorant_inbox_reply

Destructive

Send a plain-text answer in the same email thread, from the mailbox that received the reply. Use it to answer one person; to pass the conversation to someone else use argorant_inbox_forward, and to only change its label use argorant_inbox_classify. It goes out at once as a real email and cannot be called back, so show the user the text and get their yes first. Write {{signature}} where the mailbox's signature should go. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#inbox

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": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_inbox_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	The answer's text, as plain text. Write {{signature}} where the signature goes.
`event_id`	Yes	The conversation's event_id, from argorant_inbox.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is partly known, but the description goes well beyond them by stating the message is sent immediately as a real email, cannot be recalled, and requires showing the user the text and getting confirmation first. That confirmation rule and the {{signature}} placeholder are genuinely useful behavioral detail an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loading purpose before alternatives and the irreversibility warning, with a docs pointer at the end. The only waste is the repeated {{signature}} instruction, which the body parameter description already carries.

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 two-parameter send tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to prefer siblings, that the action is irreversible, and that user confirmation is required beforehand.

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 already documented in the schema, including the plain-text and {{signature}} instructions for body and the event_id provenance. The description repeats the signature and plain-text guidance rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Send a plain-text answer in the same email thread, from the mailbox that received the reply") and immediately distinguishes itself from two named siblings, argorant_inbox_forward and argorant_inbox_classify. An agent can pick this tool over its neighbors 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use ("Use it to answer one person") plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them: forwarding to someone else and relabeling only. Nothing about routing 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.