List the triggers attached to a MailKite sequence to identify entry points. Retrieve trigger details by sequence ID to manage automation entry conditions.
List the triggers attached to a sequence — the doors into it. Requires an API key (mk_live_…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter `id`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds an authentication requirement (mk_live_… API key) not present in structured data. It does not enumerate return fields, but for a read-only list the important behavioral context is covered.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the action and scope are front-loaded and the authentication note is relevant and compact.
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 single-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description conveys what is listed, the required identifier, and authentication. It could add pagination or return-shape details, but they are not essential for this simple list operation.
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 100%, but the id description is tautological ('Path parameter `id`'). The tool description supplies the missing semantics by identifying id as the sequence whose triggers are listed.
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 is specific: verb 'List' + resource 'triggers' + scoping 'attached to a sequence'. The 'doors into it' metaphor reinforces the role and distinguishes it from sequence-level tools and trigger mutation siblings.
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?
Clear context is provided: this tool reads triggers belonging to a particular sequence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping makes the appropriate use case evident among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.