sendpulse_run_flowTrigger a SendPulse WhatsApp automation flow for a contact using their contact ID and flow ID, and optionally pass dynamic variables.
Trigger a specific automation flow for a contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account name (only one configured: brand_a) | brand_a |
| flow_id | Yes | Flow ID (from sendpulse_list_flows) | |
| contact_id | Yes | ||
| external_data | No | Dynamic variables to inject into the flow |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false), so the description does not need to restate those. But it adds nothing else: no mention of side effects on the contact, how external_data is consumed, or whether re-running enqueues duplicates for a non-idempotent operation.
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 or repetition, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified for a mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.
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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation that injects a nested external_data object and has no output schema, the description is too thin. It provides no side-effect information, no sibling routing, and no explanation of the contact_id parameter.
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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema (including external_data and flow_id's reference to sendpulse_list_flows). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is acceptable at this coverage level, though the undocumented contact_id remains unexplained in both places.
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 ('Trigger'), resource ('automation flow'), and target ('for a contact'), which is more than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling 'sendpulse_run_flow_by_trigger', so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus sendpulse_run_flow_by_trigger or sendpulse_resume_contact_automation, no prerequisites, and no note on required contact/flow state. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.