Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EmailOctopus MCP Server

EmailOctopus MCP Server

by OfirOhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Start automation for contact

trigger_automation

Queue a contact into an EmailOctopus automation using the 'Started via API' trigger; confirm with the user first because it sends real emails.

Instructions

Queue a contact into an automation that uses the 'Started via API' trigger. This sends real emails, so confirm with the user.

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": {
      "automationId": "<automationId>",
      "contact": "<contact>"
    },
    "name": "trigger_automation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactYesContact ID or email address
automationIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description adds the crucial side effect that annotations omit: real emails go out, so user confirmation is required. It still doesn't say what happens on failure or whether the queue action is reversible, but the key risk is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the safety warning second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does and the primary risk. Gaps are minor: no mention of the response, error behavior, or the contact/automation preconditions an agent would need before calling.

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 coverage is 50%: 'contact' is documented (ID or email) while 'automationId' is bare. The description partially compensates by implying automationId must reference an automation configured with the 'Started via API' trigger, adding selection meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (queue) and resource (contact into an automation), and narrows it to automations using the 'Started via API' trigger. No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can select this without ambiguity.

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?

It supplies one important operational condition ('confirm with the user' because real emails are sent) but never says when this is appropriate versus other contact tools, nor any prerequisites such as the automation needing the right trigger and the contact existing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools