Skip to main content
Glama

List campaign folders

argorant_list_folders
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the folders that group campaigns, with how many campaigns each holds and how many are in no folder. Use it to find a folder_id for argorant_move_campaign_to_folder or argorant_rename_folder; each campaign in argorant_list_campaigns shows its folder_id. For labels across folders use argorant_list_campaign_tags. It is free. 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_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds cost transparency ('It is free') and discloses the shape of the result (per-folder counts plus an unfiled count), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but with zero params a full listing is implied.

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-loads the purpose, then packs routing information into short clauses. The trailing docs URL is mildly promotional but still actionable; every other sentence carries distinct decision-relevant content.

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?

A no-arg, read-only listing tool with an output schema; the description covers purpose, what comes back, and where the result is consumed. Nothing an agent needs 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 ('List the folders that group campaigns') and adds the payload detail ('how many campaigns each holds and how many are in no folder'), which immediately separates it from argorant_list_campaigns and argorant_list_campaign_tags.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream tools this feeds (argorant_move_campaign_to_folder, argorant_rename_folder), explains where else folder_id surfaces (argorant_list_campaigns), and routes label-across-folder queries to argorant_list_campaign_tags. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are both covered.

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.