SendPulse WhatsApp MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Contact Variables

sendpulse_list_variables

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all custom contact variables for a SendPulse WhatsApp bot by providing its bot ID, so you can review available fields before mapping contacts or personalizing messages.

Instructions

List all custom contact variables defined for a bot.

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_variables"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the scoping detail that variables belong to a bot, contributing little beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema. However, it omits the return shape (e.g. whether variables come with IDs/names) and does not flag the required bot_id dependency, leaving minor gaps.

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%; the schema explains bot_id's origin (from sendpulse_list_bots) and the account default. The description provides no parameter detail, so the 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 (List) and resource (custom contact variables scoped to a bot), which is clearly distinct from siblings like sendpulse_list_tags or sendpulse_list_bots. It stops short of explicitly differentiating why an agent would pick this over those other list tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sendpulse_set_contact_variable (the write counterpart). The agent must infer that this is the read side of that pair.

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