open_automation_editorOpen the automation editor for a specific SendGrid automation by providing its automation ID. Modify email automation workflows directly.
Open automation editor for a specific automation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| automation_id | Yes | The automation ID to edit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the word 'Open', but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations carry most of the safety information, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key constraint ('specific automation') appears immediately.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, this description is mostly sufficient. The main missing piece is what 'open' actually produces (e.g., a URL, a UI navigation) and explicit sibling differentiation, but these are not critical for invoking the tool with the required automation_id.
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 description coverage is 100%, so automation_id is already documented in the input schema. The description's 'for a specific automation' aligns with the parameter but does not add format, source, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('automation editor') and adds 'for a specific automation', which indicates it targets an existing automation rather than creating a new one. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like open_automation_creator, but the 'specific automation' wording is enough to make the basic purpose clear.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_automation_creator or update_automation_settings. The phrase 'for a specific automation' only implies that the automation already exists, but the description never states when this tool should be chosen instead of a related sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.