Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check your verification results

argorant_verification_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Show how far a check of the user's email list has come, how many addresses got each result and what it actually cost, with a link to the full results and a CSV file in Argorant for the signed-in user. Use it to follow argorant_start_verification; to price a new list use argorant_quote_verification. Only valid means an address was confirmed to work; unknown, risky and catch-all do not mean that. It starts no checks, buys no contacts and spends no credits. 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": {
      "run": "<run>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_verification_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runYesThe run id from argorant_start_verification.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description reinforces this with the no-side-effects sentence. It adds genuine value beyond annotations by explaining the meaning of the result categories ('only valid means an address was confirmed to work; unknown, risky and catch-all do not') and what the response carries. It does not say how to behave while a run is still in progress (poll vs. wait) or what an invalid/unknown run id yields.

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 what the tool returns, followed by sibling routing and side-effect disclaimers, with no filler sentences. The opening sentence is dense and multi-clause, which slightly hurts scannability, but every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter polling tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete: purpose, result semantics, cost reporting and alternatives are all covered. The remaining gap is procedural guidance for pending runs, which is mild given an output schema exists.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with an explicit pattern and its origin in argorant_start_verification. The description adds no format or handling detail beyond that, so the schema is doing all the work; baseline 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?

States a specific resource and verb: reports the progress, per-result counts and cost of an email-list verification run, plus the artifacts (results link, CSV). An agent can distinguish it from argorant_start_verification and argorant_quote_verification 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?

Explicitly routes: use this to follow argorant_start_verification, and use argorant_quote_verification to price a new list. Negatives are also made explicit ('starts no checks, buys no contacts and spends no credits'), so an agent can rule out this tool for initiating or costing work.

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