send16-mcp

create_action

Link an event name to a transactional template; each occurrence triggers a single email to the matching contact.

Instructions

Create an Action that maps an event name to a transactional template. Each matching event sends one email to the contact.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "eventName": "<eventName>",
      "templateSlug": "<templateSlug>"
    },
    "name": "create_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Display name
`apiKey`	No	Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
`enabled`	No
`sendOnce`	No	Only send once per contact regardless of how many times the event fires
`eventName`	Yes	Event name to match (e.g. 'order.placed')
`delaySeconds`	No	Delay before sending
`templateSlug`	Yes	Transactional template slug to send

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.7Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions that matching events send one email, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., idempotency, duplicates, permissions, rate limits) beyond this basic behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence is meaningful and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 7 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. The description does not mention the return value, success indicators, or error handling, leaving the agent without information on how to interpret the tool's result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds the context that eventName and templateSlug are used for mapping, but does not elaborate on other parameters like apiKey, enabled, etc. beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates an Action that maps an event to a transactional template and sends an email. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_webhook or create_campaign.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server