Skip to main content
Glama
deyikong

SendGrid MCP Server

by deyikong

Open Automation Editor

open_automation_editor

Edit email automation workflows in SendGrid by opening the automation editor for a specific automation ID to modify sequences and triggers.

Instructions

Open automation editor for a specific automation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
automation_idYesThe automation ID to edit

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the tool by generating a URL to the SendGrid automation editor for the given automation_id and returning it as a text message.
    handler: async ({ automation_id }: { automation_id: string }): Promise<ToolResult> => {
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Please open this URL in your browser to edit automation ${automation_id}:\nhttps://mc.sendgrid.com/automations/${automation_id}/detail`,
          },
        ],
      };
    },
  • Defines the input schema using Zod, requiring a string 'automation_id'.
    inputSchema: {
      automation_id: z.string().describe("The automation ID to edit"),
    },
  • Registers the 'open_automation_editor' tool as part of the automationTools object, which is later spread into allTools and registered to the MCP server.
    open_automation_editor: {
      config: {
        title: "Open Automation Editor",
        description: "Open automation editor for a specific automation",
        inputSchema: {
          automation_id: z.string().describe("The automation ID to edit"),
        },
      },
      handler: async ({ automation_id }: { automation_id: string }): Promise<ToolResult> => {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Please open this URL in your browser to edit automation ${automation_id}:\nhttps://mc.sendgrid.com/automations/${automation_id}/detail`,
            },
          ],
        };
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'opens' an editor, which implies a UI interaction or launching an interface, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only view, an editable interface, what permissions are required, whether changes are saved automatically, or what happens if the automation doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (opening an editor for an existing resource), no annotations, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about behavioral aspects like UI behavior, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The completeness is borderline, as it covers the basic purpose but leaves operational details unclear.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'automation_id' clearly documented in the schema as 'The automation ID to edit'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Open automation editor') and the target ('for a specific automation'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'open_automation_creator' or 'open_template_editor', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes editing an existing automation from creating a new one or editing other resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing automation ID), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., for creating new automations), or explicit alternatives like 'open_automation_creator' for creation or 'list_automations' to find IDs. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/deyikong/sendgrid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server