Argorant

Resume or cancel an email-finding list

argorant_manage_find_emails

Destructive

Resume or cancel a paused email-finding list from argorant_find_emails. Use it only after the user agreed to continue or to stop; to see why it paused use argorant_find_emails_status. Resuming continues the lookups at the same prices, optionally with a new spending limit the user approved, passed as max_credits. Each person costs 1 credit when an email is found and confirmed, and 1 credit when the company's domain accepts every address (catch-all). In that case the most likely address is returned and marked unconfirmed. It costs 0.25 credits when nothing is found. Nothing is charged for invalid input, for a domain that does not exist or cannot receive email, or when the check cannot be finished right now (status retry_later). Credits are the account's shared credits. People already done are never charged again, and rows held for missing credits are paid first without a new lookup. Cancelling stops the list; people not done yet are never looked up or charged, and charges already made stay. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#find-work-emails

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_manage_find_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	resume or cancel
`job_id`	Yes	The job_id returned by argorant_find_emails
`max_credits`	No	New total spending limit for resume

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Well beyond the annotations, it details the credit model per outcome (1 credit for a found/confirmed email, 1 for catch-all with the returned address marked unconfirmed, 0.25 for nothing found, 0 for invalid input, nonexistent/unreachable domains, or retry_later) and states that credits are the account's shared balance. It also discloses the two non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot infer: already-completed people are never recharged and rows held for missing credits are paid first without a new lookup, and on cancel that pending work is never looked up or charged while prior charges stand.

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 precondition are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the pricing detail is dense but relevant to an operation that spends money. It is long and could compress the repeated zero-charge cases into one clause, but nothing is filler or off-topic.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description instead supplies the billing, idempotency and cancellation semantics that matter for a destructive, money-spending action. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining max_credits as a new total spending limit that only applies on resume and only when the user approved it, which is semantically richer than the schema's 'New total spending limit for resume'. The action enum is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (resume/cancel) and the exact resource (a paused email-finding list) and ties it to the originating tool argorant_find_emails. The scope is narrow enough that an agent can distinguish it from argorant_find_emails and argorant_find_emails_status 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 an explicit precondition ('Use it only after the user agreed to continue or to stop') that rules out autonomous use, and routes the diagnostic case to argorant_find_emails_status by name. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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.