Update an email automation trigger by editing its event or filter, or toggle enabled to pause it without deleting the sequence for existing recipients.
Edit a trigger, or toggle enabled to switch the door off without deleting it. Either way, everyone already walking the sequence carries on. Requires an API key (mk_live_…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter `id`. | |
| event | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| enabled | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a mutation (`readOnlyHint: false`), and the description adds a useful non-obvious behavior: existing sequence participants are unaffected by trigger edits. It also discloses the API key requirement, which helps the agent prepare the call correctly.
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?
Three short sentences deliver the core action, the key behavioral nuance, and the auth requirement with little waste. The 'door' metaphor is slightly informal but does not obscure the meaning.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, the disable-without-delete behavior, and the impact on existing sequence walkers. However, with no output schema and no explanation of `event` or `filter`, the definition is not fully self-sufficient for an agent that needs to update those fields.
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 schema only documents the `id` path parameter; coverage is 25%. The description explains the effect of `enabled` ('toggle `enabled` to switch the door off'), but it says nothing meaningful about `event` or `filter`, which remain opaque. An agent cannot reliably construct a payload beyond toggling `enabled`.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Edit a trigger') and immediately clarifies a key distinction: toggling `enabled` switches the trigger off without deleting it. This differentiates the tool from its sibling `mailkite_delete_trigger` and makes the operation's intent unmistakable.
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 description gives clear situational context: use this tool to modify a trigger or disable it without deletion. The 'rather than deleting it' phrasing implicitly contrasts with `delete_trigger`, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like `stop_sequence` or when creation would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.