Create a canonical block template draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Template name | |
| blocks | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | Subject with declared {{variables}} | |
| variables | Yes | ||
| message_type | Yes | ||
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Draft' implies the template is not immediately published, which is useful, but it does not mention write effects, permissions, validation, or the relationship to template_publish. A create operation without further context leaves behavioral expectations vague.
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?
A single sentence with no filler and the core verb front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices informational content for brevity.
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?
With 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not explain the template draft lifecycle, the meaning of the block-based structure, or what success looks like, leaving major gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain what 'blocks' or 'message_type' mean, nor does it clarify the structure of variables. Required parameters like organization_id are left to the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('canonical block template draft'), clearly identifying the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling template tools like template_import_html or template_update, though the 'draft' qualifier and 'block template' hint at a structured creation flow.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus template_update, template_import_html, or template_publish. The only hint is the name, so an agent cannot learn selection criteria or exclusions from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most resource CRUD sets are distinct, but the server duplicates entire CRM activity/task tool groups under crm_* and platform_crm_* with identical descriptions, so an agent cannot tell which set to call. Additional overlap exists around identity/context (me, context, platform_context, organizations) and exports (contacts_export vs data_export_create).
Names generally follow commsharbor_<resource>_<action>, but list endpoints are split between plural nouns (audiences, webhooks) and *_list suffixes (crm_activities_list), and some tools use bare nouns or verbs (health, me, context, logout). The mixed conventions are readable but not fully predictable.
141 tools is far beyond a coherent surface for an agent to select from. Even with a broad CRM/email platform scope, the set should be consolidated, namespaced more aggressively, or split into multiple focused servers.
Coverage is broad: campaigns, templates, audiences, CRM objects, imports/exports, auth, billing, domains, webhooks, and suppressions all have lifecycle tools. Gaps like suppression deletion, webhook update, and a non-platform leads group are minor relative to the overall surface, though the duplicate platform sets muddy completeness.