Nitrosend

nitro_manage_template

Destructive

Create/edit reusable email templates; based_on clones. Creative work: composition_mode=intent, follow exact next_call. Exact edits: template_id, section_updates, if_version. Broadcasts: nitro_compose_campaign.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Author text (plain) or custom text alternative (designed).
`goal`	No
`name`	No
`facts`	No	Literal evidence: required values must appear; available values may be used.
`theme`	No	Brand-theme overrides; logo_url uses public or nitro_ingest media_url/image_url, never signed_id.
`dry_run`	No
`subject`	No
`based_on`	No
`reply_to`	No
`sections`	No	Email sections; use nitro://schema only for full authoring. Images use public or nitro_ingest media_url/image_url, never signed_id.
`from_name`	No
`preheader`	No
`draft_meta`	No	Optional authoring provenance; never blocks.
`from_email`	No
`if_version`	No	Version token for conflict-safe writes.
`contract_id`	No
`renegotiate`	No
`source_text`	No	Untrusted source evidence; put authoring directions in user_instruction.
`template_id`	No
`validate_only`	No
`content_format`	No	Match source.
`idempotency_key`	No	Required for non-dry-run persistence; exact retry only.
`plain_text_mode`	No	Text provenance.
`section_updates`	No	Targeted section edits; never changes order or type.
`composition_mode`	No	intent plans; validate checks; draft persists; generate composes and persists.
`user_instruction`	No
`brand_context_ref`	No
`creative_route_id`	No	Intent-only route id.
`design_mode_override`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / creative_route_id / description

Previous value: -"Intent-only route id; unavailable or invalid routes fail explicitly."New value: +"Intent-only route id."

changedInput schema / properties / draft_meta / description

Previous value: -"Optional authoring provenance; never blocks validation or persistence."New value: +"Optional authoring provenance; never blocks."

changedInput schema / properties / sections / description

Previous value: -"Email sections. Follow next_call for composition; use nitro://schema only for full authoring. Images use public or nitro_ingest media_url/image_url, never signed_id."New value: +"Email sections; use nitro://schema only for full authoring. Images use public or nitro_ingest media_url/image_url, never signed_id."

removedInput schema / properties / validate_only / description
```
Removed value: -"Alias for validate; never persists."
```

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds workflow behavior such as based_on cloning and following next_call for intent mode, but does not explain persistence, validation, or what destructive edits affect.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, starting with the core create/edit action before usage routing. It is efficient but somewhat telegraphic, especially the instruction to follow exact next_call.

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?

For a complex 29-parameter, deeply nested mutation tool with no output schema and only 45% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It provides useful mode routing but does not adequately explain the full parameter surface or operational behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 29 parameters and only 45% schema description coverage, the description should compensate substantially. It clarifies a few key parameters like template_id, section_updates, if_version, based_on, and composition_mode, but leaves most parameters undocumented in the description.

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: create/edit reusable email templates, with based_on cloning. It also distinguishes the broadcast sibling via nitro_compose_campaign, though it does not fully clarify whether management includes delete/list operations.

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?

It gives explicit routing: creative work should use composition_mode=intent and follow the next call, while exact edits use template_id, section_updates, and if_version. It names nitro_compose_campaign for broadcasts, but lacks broader when-not guidance against other siblings.

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

All Nitrosend tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?