Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Turn a subsequence off or on

argorant_set_subsequence_enabled
Destructive

Turn one subsequence off or back on without changing its keywords or emails. Use it to pause or resume one subsequence; to change or remove subsequences use argorant_set_campaign_subsequences. Off means no new reply starts it. When you turn it off, existing_leads decides what happens to the people already in it. finish (the default) lets them get the rest of its emails, and stop ends them now without counting them as finished. Ask the user which one they want, and set confirmed=true for stop only after their clear yes. The ids and current states come from argorant_get_campaign. 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>",
      "subsequence_id": "<subsequence_id>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_set_subsequence_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledYesfalse turns it off, true turns it on again
confirmedNotrue only after the user's clear yes to stopping the people in it now
campaign_idYesThe campaign's id, from argorant_list_campaigns.
existing_leadsNoOnly when turning it off. finish lets the people already in it get the rest of its emails, stop ends them now.finish
subsequence_idYesThe subsequence's id, from argorant_get_campaign.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the tool's risk profile is declared; the description nonetheless adds real substance: what 'off' actually means (no new reply starts it), that emails already queued continue under 'finish', and that 'stop' ends people now without counting them as finished. It stops short of stating whether the change is reversible (implied yes, since it can be turned back on) or what the response contains, so it augments rather than completes the annotation picture.

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 the sibling hand-off before the branching detail, and every sentence carries operational content. It runs long for a toggle, partly because the existing_leads branch and the confirmation protocol are spelled out, plus a docs URL at the end.

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 destructive toggle with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies what structured fields cannot: the semantic meaning of 'off', the fate of in-flight leads under each existing_leads value, and the human-confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 the schema already documents enabled, confirmed, existing_leads, and where both ids come from, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the risky pairing (existing_leads only matters when disabling, confirmed gates the 'stop' choice) but repeats rather than extends the schema's own wording.

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 ('Turn one subsequence off or back on') plus the explicit non-scope ('without changing its keywords or emails'), and names the sibling tool (argorant_set_campaign_subsequences) that handles the editing case. An agent can distinguish it from the other campaign tools 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 the positive case ('pause or resume one subsequence') and the exclusion with an alternative ('to change or remove subsequences use argorant_set_campaign_subsequences'). It also prescribes the interaction protocol — ask the user which existing_leads behavior they want and set confirmed=true only after a clear yes.

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