Skip to main content
Glama

Mailrith Email Marketing

by com.mailrith

Update an automation

automations_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Updates an existing draft or paused Automation. Before changing a running Automation, read it by ID, retain its status in the current task only, pause it, apply the update, and use bounded direct item reads until is_updating is false. Run preflight, return it to running only if it was running before and preflight passes, and verify the final status. If the update fails before changing the Automation, restore its prior running status when preflight passes. If readiness or the prior status cannot be restored, leave it paused and immediately report the failure; never activate an Automation that was not already running. Effect: workspace-change. Retry after reading the current resource state. Permission: automations:write. API reference: https://mailrith.com/developers/api-reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe exact JSON request body defined by the Mailrith public API contract.
automation_idYesThe automation identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
responseNo
request_idYesThe stable correlation ID for this MCP tool invocation.
operation_idYesThe stable Mailrith public API operation ID.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses critical behavioral details: state restoration, preflight requirements, failure handling ('leave it paused and immediately report the failure'), retry semantics ('Retry after reading the current resource state'), and permission ('automations:write'). This significantly enriches the operational context.

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 description is dense and lengthy, but every sentence conveys essential safety or procedural information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the run-on structure could be improved with bullets or shorter sentences for easier parsing.

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?

Given the high complexity (nested schema, status transitions, concurrency checks), the description covers the full lifecycle: reading, pausing, updating, preflighting, restoring, and failure escalation. It also provides permission, effect, and retry guidance. The output schema covers return values, so no additional return description is needed.

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 parameters themselves are documented, but the descriptions are generic ('The automation identifier'; 'The exact JSON request body...'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's existing field-level documentation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Updates an existing draft or paused Automation', specifying the verb and resource. It explicitly addresses running Automations with a distinct safety workflow, which differentiates it from sibling automations_update_status and automations_create.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear procedural context: for running Automations, it mandates reading, pausing, updating, preflighting, and restoring status. It implies usage for modification of automation content/definition, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions like automations_update_status.

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

All Mailrith Email Marketing 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool is prefixed by its resource and targets a unique action, so there is no real overlap between tools. Even similar operations like preflight, preview_journey, and send_test are clearly separated by resource and described with distinct effects.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `resource_action` snake_case pattern, e.g., broadcasts_create, subscribers_upsert, sequences_update_status. Custom verbs like cancel, unschedule, and preview_journey still fit the same predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

55 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently discover and choose among the surface. While each tool appears justified, the size suggests the API should be split into focused servers by resource domain.

Completeness3/5

The broadcast, automation, sequence, and subscriber workflows are well covered with lifecycle operations. However, custom fields and segments only have read/list/preview operations with no create, update, or delete, and several resources lack delete endpoints, leaving notable gaps for full lifecycle management.

Resources