Meisa

Update Sequence Step

meisa_update_sequence_step

Idempotent

Edit an existing step's fields (PATCH-style). You can only change fields that apply to the step's type (e.g. delay_value on a delay step, email_template_id on an email step). The step_type cannot be changed; delete and re-add to switch a step's type.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New step name.
`step_id`	Yes	UUID of the step to update (from meisa_get_sequence).
`delay_unit`	No	New unit for a delay step.
`action_type`	No	New action for an action step.
`delay_value`	No	New wait amount for a delay step.
`sequence_id`	Yes	UUID of the sequence the step belongs to.
`action_config`	No	New config for an action step.
`condition_logic`	No	New logic for a condition step.
`condition_rules`	No	New rules for a condition step.
`email_template_id`	No	New template for an email step.
`thread_with_first_email`	No	For an email step after the sequence's first email: true sends it as a reply in the same inbox thread as the first email (subject "Re: <first email subject>"), false sends a normal new email.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / thread_with_first_email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "For an email step after the sequence's first email: true sends it as a reply in the same inbox thread as the first email (subject \"Re: <first email subject>\"), false sends a normal new email.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: PATCH-style partial updates, type-dependent field applicability, and the immutability of step_type. It could disclose what happens when an inapplicable field is passed, but the added context is solid.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the constraints follow in logical order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral rules: partial update semantics, type-restricted fields, and step_type immutability. The schema handles parameter-level details and required fields, so the description is nearly complete, though it could be slightly richer about failure behavior for inapplicable fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter individually and sets the baseline at 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics by explaining that fields are only valid for certain step types, giving delay_value and email_template_id as examples. This conditional guidance is meaningfully beyond the per-field schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing step's fields (PATCH-style).' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like meisa_add_sequence_step, meisa_delete_sequence_step, and meisa_reorder_sequence_steps by scoping it to field-level edits on an existing step. An agent can identify the correct operation without opening the schema.

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 gives clear conditions: use it for PATCH-style edits, only pass fields applicable to the step's type, and do not attempt to change step_type. It also names the alternative workflow (delete and re-add) for switching a step's type. It does not explicitly route to sibling update tools, but the context is strong enough to select the right operation.

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

All Meisa 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?