Argorant

Start the email list check

argorant_start_verification

Destructive

Check the email list of a quote made with argorant_quote_verification in the last 15 minutes. Use it only for such a quote. Ask the user to approve the most it can cost first, and pass that number of credits as approved_maximum_charge. Each new check costs half a credit, any older check balance is used first, and addresses checked recently are free. Argorant never charges more than the quote or the approved amount, whichever is smaller, and the user does not need to buy any contacts for this. Sending the same quote again continues the same check and never charges twice. The answer has the status and a link to the results in Argorant, not the addresses. Follow it with argorant_verification_status; if an answer is unclear, check there and never start a new quote on your own. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#verify-your-own-list

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": {
      "quote_id": "<quote_id>",
      "approved_maximum_charge": "<approved_maximum_charge>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_start_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`quote_id`	Yes	The quote_id from the quote shown to the user.
`approved_maximum_charge`	Yes	The most credits the user approved for this check, up to 1,000.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds substantial context they cannot convey: half-credit pricing, older balance applied first, free re-checks of recent addresses, charge ceiling of min(quote, approved), idempotency ('same quote... never charges twice'), and the fact that results contain a link rather than the addresses.

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 the action and scope, and nearly every clause carries operational value (cost model, idempotency, follow-up tool). It is dense and long-sentenced, however, and would scan better broken into distinct statements separating cost rules from workflow rules.

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?

Complete for a paid, stateful operation: it covers preconditions, user consent, cost bounds, idempotency, what the response contains, the required follow-up tool, and points to docs for edge cases. With an output schema present, it does not over-explain return values.

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, but the description adds real meaning about the billing semantics behind approved_maximum_charge ('pass that number of credits as approved_maximum_charge', never charged more than the quote or approved amount) that the schema's one-line description does not convey.

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 ('Check the email list of a quote') and pins the exact scope ('made with argorant_quote_verification in the last 15 minutes'). An agent can tell it apart from argorant_quote_verification (creates the quote) and argorant_verification_status (follow-up) without opening either 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 inclusion condition ('only for such a quote', 15-minute window), an explicit prerequisite action ('ask the user to approve the most it can cost first'), and an explicit next step ('follow it with argorant_verification_status'). It even names a prohibition: 'never start a new quote on your own'.

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.