Lists email sequences (drip campaigns) with name, step count, enrollment stats, and active status. Filter by active/inactive and paginate results to review campaign performance.
List email sequences (drip campaigns). Returns name, step count, enrollment stats, and active status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (default 50, max 200) | |
| is_active | No | Filter by active/inactive status |
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 burden. It does disclose the returned fields (name, step count, enrollment stats, active status), which is meaningful context for a read tool, but it says nothing about pagination semantics, total counts, result ordering, or scoping/permissions.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return shape. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 paginated list tool with fully-described parameters, the description covers purpose and return fields. It falls short on distinguishing itself from the near-identical drip-campaign siblings and on any pagination or volume context, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 all three optional parameters (page, per_page, is_active) documented including defaults and max. The description adds nothing beyond the schema; the mention of "active status" in the return fields loosely echoes is_active but does not explain the filter's behavior.
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 ("List email sequences") and clarifies the domain with a parenthetical. However, that parenthetical ("drip campaigns") collides with the sibling conduyt_list_drip_campaigns without explaining the relationship, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as conduyt_list_drip_campaigns (which appears to be the same or a near-duplicate resource) or conduyt_get_sequence for single-record retrieval. The agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.