Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove a mailbox from a campaign

argorant_remove_campaign_sender

Take one sending mailbox off a campaign. The mailbox stays connected to the account and on its other campaigns. Use it for one campaign only; to stop a mailbox everywhere use argorant_update_inbox with active=false, or argorant_disconnect_inbox to stop using it for good. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#campaigns

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_remove_campaign_sender"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe mailbox address to take off this campaign.
campaign_idYesThe campaign's id, from argorant_list_campaigns.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds the key state semantics that back the non-destructive claim: the mailbox stays connected to the account and stays on its other campaigns. That is exactly the information an agent needs to predict side effects. It stops short of covering permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the mailbox is the campaign's last sender.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the scope caveat, then the alternative routing. The trailing documentation link is low-value filler for an agent but does not obscure the content.

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 write operation with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scope of effect, and alternative tools. Only edge-case behavior (last remaining sender, already-removed mailbox) is unstated, which is a minor gap given the structured data already supplied.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema, and the description's phrase "one sending mailbox" only reinforces that email is a single address rather than a list. No additional format or constraint nuance is contributed beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

"Take one sending mailbox off a campaign" names a specific verb (take off / remove) and a specific resource (a single campaign sender), and the word "one" scopes it. An agent can distinguish this from argorant_set_campaign_senders, argorant_list_campaign_senders, and argorant_remove_campaign_lead 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?

Explicit routing guidance is given: use this for a single campaign, use argorant_update_inbox with active=false to stop a mailbox everywhere, and argorant_disconnect_inbox to stop it permanently. Both when-to-use and which-alternative-under-which-condition 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 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