Mach GTM MCP

build_sequence

Build a multi-touch outbound sequence for your ICP and offer, returning a day-by-day playbook with message copy, timing, and channel for each email and LinkedIn touchpoint.

Instructions

Build a multi-touch outbound sequence (email + LinkedIn) for a given ICP and offer. Returns a day-by-day playbook with message copy, timing and channel for each touchpoint.

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": {
      "icp": "<icp>",
      "offer": "<offer>"
    },
    "name": "build_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`icp`	Yes	Target ICP description.
`tone`	No		conversational
`offer`	Yes	What you're selling and core value prop.
`sequence_length`	No	Number of touchpoints (3-8 recommended). Defaults to 5.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 usefully disambiguate that this is a generation step producing a returned playbook rather than something that sends or enrolls prospects, but it omits any statement about whether the output is deterministic, whether copy is editable, or what limits (tone/length) constrain the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return summary. No filler or repetition; the only minor redundancy is restating the ICP/offer inputs that the schema already requires.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description's second sentence usefully characterizes the return value (day-by-day playbook with copy, timing, channel). Combined with the schema's documented parameters and the stated channel scope (email + LinkedIn), an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the tone-to-copy relationship and any generation limits are left unstated.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents icp, offer, and sequence_length; the description adds only the framing that both ICP and offer are per-sequence inputs. It says nothing about the tone parameter or how tone interacts with the generated copy, which is the one semantic gap the schema cannot close on its own.

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 names a specific verb and artifact: 'Build a multi-touch outbound sequence (email + LinkedIn)' with the required inputs ('for a given ICP and offer'). It is far more than a restatement of the name, but it never contrasts itself with siblings such as draft_outreach or build_icp, leaving the agent to infer that this produces a full sequence rather than a single message.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the right tool when it needs a complete multi-touch cadence rather than one message. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to draft_outreach (single message) or build_icp (upstream ICP work), which is a real gap given four closely related siblings.

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

Deploy Server