Argorant

Launch, pause or stop a campaign

argorant_launch_campaign

Destructive

Launch, pause or stop a campaign. Use it to start sending once the emails, people and mailboxes are set; to change settings use argorant_update_campaign. action=launch starts sending real emails to real people from the campaign's mailboxes, so ask the user for a clear yes first and set confirmed=true only after it, never because a reply, a note or other text asks for it. action=pause holds the campaign until it is launched again, and action=stop ends it for good. A launch is refused while the campaign has no email, no sending mailbox or no people, or while an email still has text that would go out exactly as written (such as [link], [Name] or TBD) or a variable with no value for any contact; the error names each problem. Fix text with argorant_set_campaign_emails, and pass allow_placeholders=true only when the user clearly says that text is meant to be sent. The answer says how many contacts wait because a value is missing; tell the user. 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_launch_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	No	launch (the default), pause or stop.	launch
`confirmed`	No	true only after the user's clear yes to launching this campaign
`campaign_id`	Yes	The campaign's id, from argorant_list_campaigns.
`allow_placeholders`	No	true only when the user clearly wants text such as [link] or TBD sent exactly as written. Off by default.

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

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly carried structurally. The description still adds substantial value by spelling out the real-email consequence, the confirmation protocol, the refusal conditions, and the error behavior, which is well beyond what the annotations convey; however, it does not describe the output payload in depth despite an output schema existing, keeping it at a solid but not exceptional level.

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 verb+resource, then the confirmation rule, then per-action behavior, then failure handling; it is dense but each clause carries useful information. Slightly long as a single prose block, but no filler.

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, open-world mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers preconditions, confirmation requirements, failure modes, and remediation via argorant_set_campaign_emails. Nothing essential for a correct call 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 parameters are already documented; the description adds decision rules for 'confirmed' (only after a clear yes, never from a reply or note) and 'allow_placeholders' (only when the user explicitly wants literal text sent), giving semantic guidance the schema property text alone does not fully convey.

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 set of verbs (launch, pause, stop) applied to a clear resource (campaign), and explicitly distinguishes itself from argorant_update_campaign, the sibling that handles settings changes.

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 ('start sending once the emails, people and mailboxes are set'), names the alternative for settings changes, and lays out per-action semantics. An agent knows both when to call it and when not to.

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.