Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Loops MCP by usefulapi

by io.usefulapi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send an event

loops_send_event
Destructive

Sends an event to Loops for a contact — TRIGGERS any automations/loops subscribed to this event. Loops API: POST /v1/events/send.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoContact email (supply email or userId).
userIdNoContact userId (supply email or userId).
eventNameYesThe event name to send (required).
mailingListsNoMap of mailing-list id -> subscribed boolean.
eventPropertiesNoProperties attached to this event.
contactPropertiesNoContact properties to update alongside the event.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / properties / contactProperties / additionalProperties / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / contactProperties / additionalProperties / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "boolean"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / eventProperties / additionalProperties / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / eventProperties / additionalProperties / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "boolean"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description usefully discloses the non-obvious side effect that sending an event TRIGGERS subscribed automations/loops, which is exactly the risk signal an agent needs. It omits other behavioral facts (whether a missing contact aborts the call, idempotency, rate limits), so it is good but not complete.

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?

A single tight sentence with the side effect front-loaded and the raw endpoint appended for reference; no filler and nothing an agent must read past to get the core meaning.

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 a 6-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema, the description plus 100%-covered schema plus the destructive hint cover most of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps are behavioral edge cases (mutation semantics on contact creation, failure modes) rather than missing invocation information.

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 email/userId alternation, mailingLists, and property maps are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when structured fields do the work.

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 and resource ("Sends an event to Loops for a contact") plus the concrete effect on downstream automations, which lets an agent distinguish it from the contact-CRUD and transactional-email siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the nearest alternative (loops_send_transactional), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but never says when to reach for it versus loops_send_transactional or the contact tools, and lists no prerequisites or exclusions. As with the calibration "update_drive" example, stating behavior is not the same as routing guidance.

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

All Loops MCP by usefulapi 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