Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List connected sending tools

argorant_list_integrations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Show the sending tools the user connected in Argorant under Settings, Integrations, each with its id and whether it can receive people directly (can_receive_people). Use it to pick where argorant_push_to_integration sends people; give integration_id to also list the campaigns inside that tool. A tool is connected only in the Argorant app with that tool's own API key, so never ask the user for such a key here. It is free. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#send-to-other-tools and https://docs.argorant.com/docs/guides/send-to-other-tools

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_integrations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
integration_idNoAlso list the campaigns inside this connected tool

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the operation is free (no credits), no per-tool API key is needed at this call site, and connection state is managed in the Argorant app. It stops short of describing ordering or empty-state behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 purpose, then usage, then caveats, then cost — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is slightly long due to two full documentation URLs appended at the end, which could be condensed but are at least clearly secondary.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how to expand results, cost, and the auth/key pitfall to avoid. No meaningful gap remains.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already says integration_id means 'Also list the campaigns inside this connected tool' — the description restates the same idea without adding format, constraints, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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 the sending tools the user connected in Argorant under Settings, Integrations') and even names the fields returned (id, can_receive_people). It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like argorant_list_inboxes or argorant_list_campaigns.

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 gives the use case ('Use it to pick where argorant_push_to_integration sends people') and names the downstream sibling it feeds. It also adds an exclusion-style rule: never ask the user for the tool's API key here, since connection happens inside the Argorant app.

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