Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Kit MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update a sequence email

update_sequence_email
Destructive

Modify an email in a Kit sequence: subject, content, send days, delay, position, or publish status. Use confirm=true for delivery or destructive changes.

Instructions

Update a sequence email. May affect delivery, audience membership, published data or irreversible state. Requires confirm=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoNamed private account from KIT_ACCOUNTS. Defaults to KIT_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT or the first configured account.
confirmNoMust be true for audience/delivery changes, publishing, destructive operations and signing-secret changes. Use only for an action requested by the user.
contentNoNew HTML body content of the email
payloadNoComplete JSON body instead of individual body flags. Supports nullable fields and nested bulk structures. Cannot be combined with body flags or payload_file.
subjectNoNew subject line for the email
email_idYesPositive email id.
positionNoNew zero-based position of the email in the sequence
publishedNoPass `true` to publish a draft email or `false` to unpublish it
send_daysNoDays of the week this email may be sent. Pass a subset to restrict delivery, or `null` to reset to all days (inherits the sequence schedule)
delay_unitNoNew delay unit. Use `days` for schedule-aware delivery, `hours` for a fixed hourly delay
delay_valueNoNew delay value
sequence_idYesPositive sequence id.
payload_fileNoLocal JSON request body file, at most 5 MB. Contents are validated before the API call and are never logged.
preview_textNoNew preview text shown in email clients before the email is opened
email_template_idNoNew email template ID for layout and styling. Pass `null` to clear

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value on top: it names the affected domains (delivery, audience membership, published data) and flags irreversible state, plus the confirm gate. This is meaningful context the annotations alone do not convey, though the phrasing 'may affect' stays somewhat vague.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the risk/gate information. Every clause is useful; the only minor cost is the list-like enumeration of affected areas, which is slightly generic.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 15-parameter destructive mutation with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description covers the risk profile and the confirm gate but says nothing about the mutually exclusive input forms (payload vs individual body flags vs payload_file) or account selection. The schema covers these, so the gap is not fatal, but a routing sentence would have completed the picture.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters, including the nested payload object and payload_file exclusivity. The description only restates the confirm requirement and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource (update a sequence email), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like update_sequence or update_broadcast. It is clear but does not explicitly call out what distinguishes it from those near-neighbours beyond the resource name.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Requires confirm=true' gives a concrete precondition for invocation, and the risk sentence implies caution before mutating. However, there is no guidance on when this tool is preferable to alternatives (e.g. update_sequence for schedule changes), nor any statement of what must be true before calling it for a given field.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools