List your email sequences, newest first, with live enrollment counts, excluding archived ones.
List your sequences, newest first, each with live enrollment counts. Archived sequences are omitted. Requires an API key (mk_live_…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safe read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: newest-first ordering, live enrollment counts in the output, archived-sequence filtering, and the required mk_live_ API key. It does not mention pagination or limits, but the added context goes well beyond the annotation.
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?
Two compact sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The primary purpose and output characteristics are front-loaded, and the authentication note is placed last.
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 parameterless read-only list tool, the description adequately conveys what the response contains (sequences with live enrollment counts), the ordering, and the archive filter. Pagination behavior is not mentioned, but this is a minor gap for such a simple invocation.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are vacuous and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of the API key refers to authentication rather than an input parameter, so no additional parameter detail is needed.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('sequences'), and a scoping qualifier ('your'). It adds distinctive behavioral details—newest-first ordering, live enrollment counts, and omission of archived sequences—that separate it from sibling tools like list_routes or list_triggers.
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 read-only listing use case is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as get_sequence or list_enrollments. Mentioning the API key requirement is a useful prerequisite, but no alternative selection guidance or exclusions are provided beyond archived sequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.