Update an existing email segment by changing its name or refining its filter conditions to target the right contacts.
Update a segment's name or filter (PATCH /segments/:id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The segment id. | |
| name | No | ||
| filter | No | e.g. { status: 'unsubscribed', property_filters: [{ key, operator, value? }] }. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a PATCH mutation, but it does not disclose possible side effects—for example, updating a filter may recompute segment membership and remove contacts—nor does it describe return behavior or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and fields, and the appended PATCH path adds useful implementation context without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally viable for a simple partial update, but meaningful gaps remain: no mention of return values, no guidance on what happens when a filter update changes segment membership, and no side-effect warnings. With no output schema and no annotations, more context would make the tool safer to invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%; the description aligns 'name or filter' with the optional properties and clarifies id as the path parameter. It adds little beyond the schema, and the filter object semantics are left mostly to the schema example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource ('segment') and the exact updatable fields ('name or filter'), and includes the HTTP method and path (PATCH /segments/:id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_segment, get_segment, and delete_segment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: update a segment's name or filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create/delete/list segments or state any prerequisites or conditions for when this tool should be chosen over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.