sendpulse_run_flow_by_triggerTrigger a SendPulse WhatsApp automation flow for a contact using a keyword, with optional dynamic variables.
Trigger an automation flow for a contact using a keyword trigger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account name (only one configured: brand_a) | brand_a |
| contact_id | Yes | ||
| external_data | No | Dynamic variables to inject | |
| trigger_keyword | Yes | Keyword that activates the flow |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations disclose openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description does not warn that triggering a flow initiates outbound automation (messages to a real contact) or that repeat calls will re-trigger the flow. For a non-idempotent, open-world side-effecting tool this is a meaningful omission.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though it trades away detail that would have been useful.
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?
With no output schema and a non-idempotent, open-world side-effecting action, the description should say what triggering actually does (sends automated messages, injects external_data as dynamic variables) and what happens on retry. None of that is present.
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 the schema already documents account, trigger_keyword, and external_data; only contact_id is undocumented in either place. The description mentions contact and keyword but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema.
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') plus resource ('automation flow') and the mechanism ('keyword trigger'), which is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling sendpulse_run_flow, so an agent cannot tell which of the two to pick 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related sendpulse_run_flow or sendpulse_list_triggers alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name rather than the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.