send16-mcp

update_action

Update an action's settings to toggle enabled, change template, or modify the event name.

Instructions

Update an Action (toggle enabled, change template, change event name).

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": {
      "actionId": "<actionId>"
    },
    "name": "update_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`apiKey`	No	Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
`enabled`	No
`actionId`	Yes	Action ID
`sendOnce`	No
`eventName`	No
`delaySeconds`	No
`templateSlug`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.7Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates mutation ('update') but does not disclose behavior like side effects, idempotency, permissions, or atomicity. The described operations are simple, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 a single concise sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and resource, and immediately lists key capabilities.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention required actionId, response format, or update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement). The tool is relatively complex, but the description provides minimal coverage.

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 low (25%). The description adds meaning for three parameters (enabled, eventName, templateSlug) but ignores others (name, apiKey, sendOnce, delaySeconds). It partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Update an Action' with specific examples (toggle enabled, change template, change event name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_action, delete_action, or list_actions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for updating existing actions by listing updatable fields, but does not explicitly specify when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling context makes the purpose clear, but lacks explicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server