Retrieve all custom event-to-template pairings for triggering transactional emails.
List Actions. Actions fire a transactional template when a custom event arrives — Plunk-style 'event_name → template' pairings, simpler than full automations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List Actions' which implies a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description is adequate for a simple list operation.
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?
The description is two sentences long: a clear verb+resource opener followed by a concise explanation of what actions are. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is fairly complete. It explains the concept of actions and their relation to templates and automations. However, it could mention the default output format or that it lists all actions.
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?
There is one parameter (apiKey) with schema description coverage at 100%. The description does not add any information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 starts with 'List Actions' (specific verb + resource) and then explains what actions are ('event_name → template' pairings) and how they differ from full automations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_action or list_automations.
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 description implies this tool is used to list all action definitions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to (e.g., for a single action use get_action). The comparison to automations gives some context but no direct usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.