WebinarStack

Configure Automation Sequence

webinarstack.workflows.configure_automation_sequence

Create a set of automation rules for an existing webinar in one atomic call (all-or-zero). Rules are returned by all read paths in deterministic trigger-lifecycle order: registered first, then in-session behavior triggers (joined, left, watched_minutes, watched_percent, video_complete, cta_click, poll_response, time_elapsed, branch_taken, segment_completed, chat_response), then before_session, after_session, and no_show last. Within the same lifecycle group, rules sort by delayMinutes ascending, then by rule id. Meta Pixel event (meta_capi) rules require the Growth plan and a pixel id from webinarstack.integrations.meta_pixels_list. Returns { webinarId, ruleIds, automationCount, steps }.

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": {
      "webinarId": "<webinarId>",
      "automations": "<automations>"
    },
    "name": "webinarstack.workflows.configure_automation_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`webinarId`	Yes	UUID of the existing webinar to add automations to
`automations`	Yes	Automation rules to create (max 20). Display order is governed by the lifecycle sort (registered → behavior triggers → before_session → after_session → no_show), not by the order rules appear in this array.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/destructive/idempotent/open-world flags), the description discloses that the operation is atomic ('all-or-zero'), that reads return rules in a deterministic lifecycle order with tie-breaking rules, that meta_capi requires the Growth plan and a valid pixel id, and exactly what the call returns. This is substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 key constraint (atomic creation) is front-loaded and each sentence carries operational information. The parenthetical enumeration of behavior trigger types is somewhat dense and overlaps the schema enum, but it is not wasted given the ordering contract it supports.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ webinarId, ruleIds, automationCount, steps }), the atomicity guarantee, ordering behavior, and plan/pixel prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that array order does not govern display order and enumerates the deterministic lifecycle sort used server-side, and it clarifies the meta_capi prerequisite chain. The trigger-type list largely restates the enum, which keeps it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Create a set of automation rules for an existing webinar in one atomic call (all-or-zero).' That is unambiguous and distinguishable from read/update siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. the automations_update sibling) for the modify-existing-rules case, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the tool operates on an 'existing webinar' and the meta_capi branch requires the Growth plan plus a pixel id from webinarstack.integrations.meta_pixels_list, which is genuine routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing versus the update or delete automation siblings.

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

All WebinarStack 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.

Resources

Need Help?