sendpulse_enable_contactRe-enable a previously disabled contact in SendPulse WhatsApp by supplying its contact ID. This restores the contact so messaging can resume.
Re-enable a previously disabled contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account name (only one configured: brand_a) | brand_a |
| contact_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so safety and repeat-safety are covered. The description adds that the contact must be previously disabled, which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about what 'enable' changes, permissions, or side effects on flows/automations.
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 zero waste. Appropriate length for a simple toggle operation.
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?
Adequate for a simple state-toggle tool but incomplete: no output schema, no guidance on error cases (contact not disabled), no differentiation from sendpulse_resume_contact_automation, and no explanation of downstream effects of re-enabling a contact.
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 50%: account has a description, contact_id does not. The description adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies since half the schema is documented and the rest is self-evident (contact_id is implied by the description's 'contact').
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?
States a specific verb (re-enable) and resource (previously disabled contact). Clear purpose but does not differentiate from sibling sendpulse_disable_contact or sendpulse_resume_contact_automation, which an agent could confuse with this.
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 phrase 'previously disabled' implies usage context (only valid for disabled contacts), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the paired sendpulse_disable_contact sibling, and no error/precondition behavior if the contact isn't disabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.