Retrieve a single email sequence by UUID to view its steps, enrollment statistics, and configuration details.
Get a single email sequence with full details — steps, enrollment stats, and configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Sequence UUID |
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 the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes steps, enrollment stats, and configuration, and 'Get' implies read-only behavior. However, it does not state permission requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether any related records are resolved or omitted.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the target resource, and the return payload with zero filler. Every clause adds useful information.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does enough: it identifies the resource and describes what the response will contain. It could be stronger by clarifying how this tool relates to its sequence-listing sibling or by noting any access constraints.
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%, with the single 'id' parameter documented as a Sequence UUID. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a single email sequence') and enumerates what the response contains (steps, enrollment stats, configuration). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like conduyt_list_sequences, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 phrase 'a single' implies this is the lookup-by-id tool rather than the listing tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus conduyt_list_sequences or conduyt_get_drip_campaign. The usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.