Skip to main content
Glama

rankparse-mcp

by io.github.abhibavishi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

outreach_create_campaign

Create a draft link-building outreach campaign (sends via the user's connected Gmail). Outreach flow: 1) interview the user (their site, goal, competitors), 2) build a prospect list with get_competitor_gap / get_referring_domains / get_domain_authority, 3) research one real contact email per prospect domain, 4) write a short personalized subject+body per contact, 5) outreach_create_campaign, 6) outreach_add_contacts, 7) show the user the emails you drafted and get their OK before launching, 8) outreach_launch_campaign: for most accounts this puts the emails in the user's RankParse inbox and returns status awaiting_approval with a review_url, and nothing is sent until the user approves them there (show them the review_url; if status is approved it is already approved, so do not launch again). Shortcut: propose_outreach_send does steps 5, 6 and 8 in one call (creates or tops up the campaign, adds the contacts, asks for approval). Requires the user to have Gmail connected at rankparse.com/dashboard/integrations. To CONTINUE an existing campaign rather than start a new one, begin at outreach_suggest_prospects instead of step 1: campaigns are topped up, not replaced.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoWhat the outreach is trying to achieve, for the campaign record
nameYesCampaign name, e.g. "SaaS blogs - competitor gap Aug 2026"
site_idNoOptional RankParse website id (from list_websites, or given to you in a website-scoped outreach prompt) to link this campaign to a website. Omit to leave it unassigned.
your_domainYesThe domain being promoted, e.g. "example.com"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional RankParse website id (from list_websites, or given to you in a website-scoped outreach prompt) to link this campaign to a website. Omit to leave it unassigned.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Campaign name, e.g. \"SaaS blogs — competitor gap Aug 2026\""New value: +"Campaign name, e.g. \"SaaS blogs - competitor gap Aug 2026\""
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world); the description adds the crucial behavior that nothing is sent until user approval, that launch may return awaiting_approval with a review_url, and that a Gmail connection at a specific URL is required. It also discloses that campaigns are topped up rather than replaced.

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 core action before the workflow detail. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries routing or behavioral information; only the exhaustive 8-step enumeration is arguably heavier than needed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not state what the call returns (e.g., a campaign id needed for the subsequent outreach_add_contacts step), which is a minor gap. Otherwise the approval flow, prerequisite Gmail connection, and alternatives make it complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema (name, your_domain, goal, site_id). The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond that, so the 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 verb and resource (create a draft link-building outreach campaign) and immediately qualifies it as a draft that sends via the user's connected Gmail. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like outreach_add_contacts, outreach_launch_campaign, and zeekeo_create_campaign.

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 numbered workflow placing this tool at step 5, names a shortcut (propose_outreach_send does steps 5, 6, 8), and states the alternative path for continuing an existing campaign (start at outreach_suggest_prospects). When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All rankparse-mcp 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