SendPulse WhatsApp MCP

by lieox

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

List Flow Triggers

sendpulse_list_triggers

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all keyword triggers for a bot's flows by providing the required bot ID.

Instructions

List all keyword triggers configured for a bot's flows.

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": {
      "bot_id": "<bot_id>"
    },
    "name": "sendpulse_list_triggers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bot_id`	Yes	Bot ID (from sendpulse_list_bots)
`account`	No	Account name (only one configured: brand_a)	brand_a

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the full safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the notion that results are keyword triggers scoped to a bot's flows; it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether triggers span multiple flows.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and object. Nothing is repeated from the name or title in a wasteful way.

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 simple read-only, two-parameter list tool with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only modest gap is that it does not indicate what a trigger entry contains or whether results are paginated, though no output schema exists to carry that.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (bot_id, account) are fully documented in the schema, including the 'from sendpulse_list_bots' provenance hint and the single-account default. The description adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all keyword triggers') and scopes them to 'a bot's flows', which separates it from sendpulse_list_flows and sendpulse_run_flow_by_trigger at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling for contrast, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites (such as obtaining bot_id from sendpulse_list_bots). The only routing signal is the implied link to flows, which the agent must infer.

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