Skip to main content
Glama

Ballast - Cold Email

Set sequence

set_sequence
Destructive

Replace the whole sequence. Steps in order, each with 1 to 5 variants. Bodies may be plain text (blank lines split paragraphs) or simple HTML. Use {{first_name}} style variables, {{first_name|there}} for a fallback, {Hi|Hello} spintax, and put {{unsubscribe}} in the first email. Only drafts and paused campaigns.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "set_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
stepsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description confirms destructive replacement of the existing sequence and states the campaign-state restriction, adding context beyond the annotations. It does not cover permissions, side effects, or return behavior, but the annotations already flag destructiveness and open-world behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded, opening with the core replacement behavior and then adding only relevant content syntax and constraints. Every sentence carries useful information.

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?

For a destructive, nested mutation with no output schema, it supplies key safety and templating context, but it omits the meaning of the required id and most nested step/variant fields. An agent would still lack important guidance about several parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains body formatting, variables, spintax, and variant counts for the steps parameter, but leaves the required id parameter completely unexplained and does not clarify nested fields such as subject, active, weight, waitDays, or sameThread.

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: 'Replace the whole sequence', with additional scope about steps and variants. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as write_sequence or update_campaign.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides a useful precondition ('Only drafts and paused campaigns') which implies when not to use it. However, it does not name alternatives like write_sequence or explain when this should be chosen over them.

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