Sendblox

Preview Sequence

preview_sequence

Read-onlyIdempotent

APP: Shows email sequence structure and stop conditions without sending.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "preview_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`sequenceId`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	No
`result`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`summary`	No
`blockers`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`readiness`	No
`requestId`	Yes
`retryable`	No
`nextPossibleActions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'without sending' assurance — useful but marginal, with no word on rate limits, auth, or what the preview output contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste, and the non-sending guarantee is stated up front. The 'APP:' prefix is noise that delays the actual verb.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. However, with two optional and unexplained identifier parameters, the description leaves a real gap about how to actually invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are undocumented. The description never explains what 'id' versus 'sequenceId' mean, whether they are aliases, or what happens when neither optional parameter is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb (Shows) and resource (email sequence structure and stop conditions), plus the key property that nothing is sent. It is distinguishable from create_sequence and launch_campaign, though it never explicitly contrasts with the close sibling get_sequence.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this over get_sequence or preview_message, and no mention of prerequisites or what a 'stop condition' means in practice. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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

All Sendblox 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?