Create a new email sequence with ordered steps, delays, and email content to automate follow-up messaging.
Create a new email sequence with steps. Each step has a delay and email content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Sequence name | |
| steps | No | Sequence steps in order | |
| isActive | No | Whether the sequence is active (default true) | |
| description | No | Sequence description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether the sequence activates immediately, ordering guarantees, or what happens when steps is omitted. The second sentence only restates step structure that the schema already defines.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is close to redundant with the schema and buys little.
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 creation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should explain activation behavior, permission requirements, and the inline-body vs templateId choice. None of that is covered, leaving real gaps an agent would hit when calling it.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The mention of delay and email content mildly reinforces the steps payload, but it omits the templateId-versus-inline-body alternative and the isActive default that the schema actually specifies.
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 and resource ('Create a new email sequence') and clarifies that steps are embedded at creation time. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like conduyt_list_sequences or conduyt_create_drip_campaign, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 indication of when to use this versus conduyt_create_drip_campaign, conduyt_create_template, or the enroll tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.