Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List your email campaigns

argorant_list_campaigns
Read-onlyIdempotent

List every campaign in the account with its status, people, emails sent, replies, tags, folder and sending mailboxes. Use it to find a campaign_id or compare campaigns. For one campaign's emails and launch blockers use argorant_get_campaign, and for day by day numbers use argorant_campaign_analytics. reply_rate is the reply rate, counting people who replied, out of office and auto replies included, as a percent of the people contacted; it is the only reply rate. progress.percent is the share of all planned emails sent, every step counted, and is null while a new campaign's numbers are counted. emails_sent_today counts today in UTC and leads_left the people still in the sequence. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#campaigns

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "argorant_list_campaigns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoOnly campaigns that carry every one of these tags (case does not matter).
untaggedNotrue lists only campaigns without a tag.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes further by defining metric semantics the agent would otherwise misread: reply_rate includes out-of-office and auto replies, progress.percent counts every step and is null while a new campaign is being counted, emails_sent_today is UTC, leads_left is people still in the sequence. It does not mention pagination or result caps, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Purpose and routing come first, then a compact glossary of the ambiguous metrics, then a docs link — a sensible front-loading. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the metric definitions are somewhat long for a tool that already has an output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and the non-obvious field meanings. Only pagination/ordering behavior and how tags/untagged interact are left unaddressed.

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 (tags as AND-match, untagged) are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds nothing about the filtering parameters, so the baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List every campaign in the account') and enumerates the returned fields (status, people, emails sent, replies, tags, folder, sending mailboxes). It also names the two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish list vs. detail vs. analytics without opening any 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 a positive use case ('find a campaign_id or compare campaigns') and explicit routing to alternatives: argorant_get_campaign for one campaign's emails and launch blockers, argorant_campaign_analytics for day-by-day numbers. The when/when-not decision is fully specified.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Argorant toolsInspect
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.

Resources