sequence_statusLists email sequences and their active, completed, and stopped counts, or retrieves steps and recent enrollment statuses and stop reasons when an ID is provided.
Without an id, lists your sequences with active, completed and stopped counts. With an id, shows the steps and recent enrollments with their status and stop reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content in each mode (counts, steps, recent enrollments, status and stop reason), but says nothing about permissions, pagination/limits on 'recent enrollments', or whether the operation is purely read-only.
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 tightly parallel sentences, front-loaded with the no-id case and zero filler. Every clause conveys distinct behavior.
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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, both call modes and their returns are covered. Minor gaps remain around pagination hints for the enrollment list and any auth requirements.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'id' is optional and that its presence fundamentally changes the response shape. That is the key semantic fact about the parameter, though format/type details are left implicit.
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 concrete verbs (list/show) and the resource (sequences), and splits behavior by whether an id is supplied. It is easily separable from siblings like batch_status or create_sequence, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.
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?
'Without an id... With an id...' gives explicit mode-selection guidance, so an agent knows which call shape produces which view. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer batch_status or check_batch instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.