Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

fnlowl

by com.fnlowl
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Activate sequence

activate_sequence
Destructive

Ask for a draft sequence to start sending. Called over the API or MCP this does NOT activate it: it creates a pending approval and returns its requestId, and the sequence starts — enrolling future matching leads and mailing them on its timer — only when a signed-in person approves it in the fnlowl dashboard. Tell the user it is waiting for their approval there. Editing the sequence withdraws a pending request, so call this again after any change. An already-active sequence returns status active and no request.

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": {
      "sequenceId": "<sequenceId>"
    },
    "name": "activate_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoA project id from list_projects. Runs this call in that project instead of the connection default.
sequenceIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark this as destructive/open-world; the description adds real behavioral context — no immediate send, approval gate by a signed-in person in the dashboard, requestId return, withdrawal on edit, and idempotent behavior for already-active sequences. None of that is derivable from annotations or schema, and it does not contradict destructiveHint=true.

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?

Dense and waste-free, with the approval caveat front-loaded right after the opening clause. The lead sentence 'Ask for a draft sequence to start sending' is slightly oblique before the clarification, but every subsequent sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the return values (requestId, status active) and the approval flow, which is exactly the missing context. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent except sequenceId sourcing, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 50%: project is documented in the schema but sequenceId is bare. The description also says nothing about sequenceId's format or source (e.g., from list_sequences), so it does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter. Baseline 3.

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?

The description states a specific action and immediately corrects a likely misreading of the name: calling it does NOT activate the sequence, it creates a pending approval and returns a requestId. That distinction against siblings like update_sequence/pause_sequence is made explicit through the described effect, not just restated from the title.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-call guidance: call again after any sequence edit because editing withdraws a pending request, and an already-active sequence returns status active with no request. That covers the two non-obvious invocation branches an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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

All fnlowl 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