Skip to main content
Glama

rankparse-mcp

by io.github.abhibavishi

outreach_launch_campaign

LAUNCH a campaign: REAL EMAILS will be sent from the user's Gmail account, paced under their daily send cap by an hourly background sweep. Only call this after the user has seen the drafted emails and explicitly approved sending. Contacts already emailed in any previous campaign are automatically suppressed. Safe to call again on an already-launched campaign to queue newly added contacts: it arms only contacts not yet queued, and never re-sends anything. Returns queued/suppressed counts for THIS call and the estimated days to complete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idYesCampaign id to launch

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by detailing real email sending, pacing under daily send cap via hourly background sweep, automatic suppression of previously emailed contacts, and that it never re-sends on re-invocation. This adds significant behavioral context not captured by readOnly/idempotent hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is dense and well-structured, front-loading the key action and consequence. Every sentence earns its place: prerequisites, suppression behavior, re-invocation safety, and return counts. No redundant or vague wording.

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 side-effectful tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: user approval prerequisite, pacing mechanism, suppression, re-invocation semantics, and expected return values. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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 fully describes campaign_id with 'Campaign id to launch', and description does not add further parameter-specific semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100% and the tool has only one simple parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'launches a campaign' and that 'REAL EMAILS will be sent from the user's Gmail account', distinguishing it from sibling tools like pause/list/get. It also explains re-launch behavior for newly added contacts, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use: 'Only call this after the user has seen the drafted emails and explicitly approved sending.' Also clarifies safe re-invocation to queue newly added contacts, providing clear context and preventing misuse.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tool set is largely well-disambiguated with clear prefixes (get_, outreach_, zeekeo_) and detailed descriptions for each tool. Some tools like get_site_explorer and get_site_health could be confused at a glance, but their descriptions clearly separate their purposes. Overall, the naming and descriptions prevent meaningful ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent get_ prefix for data retrieval, with sub-prefixes like get_gsc_, get_page_, and outreach_/zeekeo_ for distinct workflows. There is no mixing of naming conventions (e.g., camelCase) or inconsistent verb usage. The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 63 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical 3-15 tool scope, categorizing as an extreme overflow. Even for a comprehensive SEO and outreach suite, the sheer number is overwhelming and likely includes redundant or overlapping functionality. This would be confusing for agents and users alike.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of SEO, backlink analysis, Google Search Console data, and outreach workflows, appearing nearly complete for its stated purpose. However, several tools are marked as 'v1 stub' (e.g., get_internal_links, get_schema_markup), indicating incomplete functionality. Despite these gaps, the overall coverage is extensive and well-rounded.

Resources