Skip to main content
Glama

rankparse-mcp

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: this tells RankParse the campaign is ready and returns status ready_for_review with a review_url (the campaign page), and nothing is sent until the user approves the emails there one by one; tell the user it is ready to review in RankParse and share 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, marks it ready for review). 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. To change the email copy of contacts already in a campaign (for example when the user asks for a rewrite), call outreach_update_contacts on the SAME campaign and then outreach_launch_campaign again; never create a second campaign for that, because the first one would keep its old unsent emails.

Input 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool creates a draft, requires Gmail connected at a specific URL, and that nothing is sent until approval. It also explains that campaigns are topped up rather than replaced, and warns against creating a second campaign for copy changes.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, and the long workflow is justified by the complexity of the task. However, the description includes substantial details about other tools' behaviors (launch, update contacts, propose_outreach_send), making it longer than strictly necessary for this tool's definition.

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 complex campaign-creation tool with no output schema, the description provides the full surrounding workflow, prerequisites, safety constraints, and sibling routing. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and understand what happens next.

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 the input schema already documents all four parameters, including goal, name, site_id, and your_domain. The description adds context about Gmail and campaign continuation but does not materially deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clarifies it sends via the user's connected Gmail. It distinguishes itself from siblings like propose_outreach_send, outreach_suggest_prospects, and outreach_update_contacts by naming them and their roles.

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?

Provides an explicit eight-step workflow with when to use this tool and when to use alternatives. It also covers starting a new campaign versus continuing an existing one, and explicitly says not to create a second campaign when changing copy.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources