Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SendGrid MCP Server

SendGrid MCP Server

by coopersully
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_segment

Update an existing SendGrid segment by specifying its ID, along with optional new name and query DSL to redefine the segment's criteria.

Instructions

Mutating: update a SendGrid Segments v2 segment

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": {
      "segment_id": "<segment_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_segment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoUpdated segment name
query_dslNoUpdated SendGrid segment query DSL
segment_idYesSegment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description flags 'Mutating:' indicating a write operation, but provides no further behavioral context such as side effects, authorization needs, or limits. Without annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

At 8 words, the description is highly concise and front-loaded with 'Mutating:'. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity; a bit more structural detail would improve it.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks details on return values, error conditions, or constraints. For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond labeling the operation as mutating, meeting the baseline.

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?

The description clearly states 'update a SendGrid Segments v2 segment', specifying the verb (update) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_segment and delete_segment, though it lacks scope details.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like refresh_segment or create_segment. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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