Skip to main content
Glama

Change one email of a flow

updateFlowStep
Destructive

Change one email of an automated flow that is off, by its place in the flow (readFlows lists them): how long it waits, its brief, its subject, whether it is written for each shopper when it sends or written now, what stops it, or whether it is sent at all. A written email whose brief changes, or that stops being personal, is written again. The flow has to be off, as for draftFlow; turning it on is enableFlow, which asks the person.

Only for a workspace with subscribed email contacts.

A change inside Kooga: it runs at once, as the person.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesWhich flow
briefNoWhat it does and says. Never invent discounts, prices, stock or urgency
enabledNofalse skips this email and goes on to the next
subjectNoIts subject line; null lets it be written
personalNotrue: written for each shopper when it sends; false: written now, to read first
positionYesWhich email, by its place in the flow: 1 is the first
stopWhenNoWhat skips it, in place of what it had; an unsubscribed contact is always skipped
waitHoursNoHours to wait: the first after the flow starts, the rest after the email before
workspaceIdNoThe workspace, as listWorkspaces gives it (its id or slug). Leave it out when this connection reaches one workspace.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
changedYes
enabledYes
subjectYes
personalYes
positionYes
waitHoursYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive mutation annotation, the description discloses that the change runs immediately as the person, that a written email may be rewritten when its brief changes or it stops being personal, and that the flow must be off. These are meaningful side effects and operational constraints not captured by annotations.

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 front-loaded and every sentence adds useful context about scope, prerequisites, or side effects. The long first sentence is dense and enumerates many fields, but it remains purposeful rather than padded.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: flow must be off, workspace eligibility, immediate execution, rewrite behavior, and the sibling tool for enabling. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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% and already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description reinforces the key semantics of position via readFlows and summarizes the mutable fields, adding some routing context but little syntax 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: changing one email within an automated flow, identified by its position. It enumerates the mutable aspects and distinguishes itself from readFlows, draftFlow, and enableFlow, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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 explicitly requires the flow to be off, points to draftFlow for the same constraint, and routes enabling to enableFlow. It also states the workspace must have subscribed email contacts and that readFlows lists flow positions, giving clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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