Argorant

Check a saved list

argorant_list_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Show whether a saved list is ready, how many people it holds and how far its background fill has come, with about how long is left. Use it after argorant_create_list, and before adding a list to a campaign or exporting it. To find a list's id use argorant_list_lists. item_count is the people in the list now and snapshot_total the size once its fills are done; a size still being counted is null, never 0, and size_is_final says when it is final. fills shows each fill, newest first, with what its searches matched and what was new to the list. The answer is short so you can check again and again. It is free and shows no contact details. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#lists

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": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_list_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`list_id`	Yes	The list's id, from argorant_create_list or argorant_list_lists.
`verbose`	No	Also show the search the list was saved from and a few of its record IDs. Leave it off when you check again and again.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already say read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds cost ('It is free'), privacy ('shows no contact details'), polling suitability ('The answer is short so you can check again and again'), and the critical null-vs-zero semantics for a size still being counted. That is real context beyond the structured fields.

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 and ordering, then field semantics, then a docs link. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries operational information; the 'fills shows each fill, newest first' sentence drifts slightly toward documenting the 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional; the description still supplies the non-obvious null/size_is_final contract and polling guidance. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing, though some output detail is duplicated.

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 fully documented there, including the verbose trade-off which the description largely restates. The added meaning ('a size still being counted is null, never 0, and size_is_final says when it is final') concerns return values rather than parameters, so baseline 3 fits.

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 whether a saved list is ready, how many people it holds and how far its background fill has come') and names the reporting fields, so an agent can distinguish it from argorant_list_lists or argorant_create_list without opening a 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 explicit sequencing ('after argorant_create_list, and before adding a list to a campaign or exporting it') and routes the agent to argorant_list_lists to obtain the id. Both when-to-use and where-to-get-the-input are covered.

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.