Radar noEixo

Create email template

create_email_template

📧 BIBLIOTECA DE TEMPLATES DE E-MAIL — Cria um novo template de e-mail reutilizável na biblioteca (aba "E-mail" de /templates). Fica disponível pra copiar no StepEditor de qualquer cadência futura via "📧 Template" — não é usado automaticamente por nenhuma cadência existente.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_email_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Corpo do e-mail (HTML se is_html=true, texto puro caso contrário).
`name`	Yes	Nome do template (só pra identificar na biblioteca, não aparece pro lead)
`is_html`	No	"true" (padrão) se o corpo é HTML, "false" pra texto puro.
`subject`	Yes	Assunto do e-mail. Suporta {{contact.firstName}} e demais variáveis de interpolação usadas nas cadências.
`target_user_id`	No	ID da conta-alvo (opcional; APENAS o admin da plataforma pode usar). Padrão: a conta autenticada.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the object is a reusable library entry, it does not affect existing cadences, and it is surfaced in the StepEditor picker. It does not mention duplicate-name handling, validation failures, or the admin-only target_user_id behavior (left to the schema).

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 core action, then the downstream availability note. Slightly padded by the emoji header and the quoted UI labels, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a 5-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and non-destructive annotations, the description supplies the missing conceptual context (library scope, non-automatic use). The only real gap is that it never says what is returned (e.g. the new template ID) for follow-up calls to update_email_template.

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 every parameter including the is_html enum and the admin-only target_user_id is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever (no mention of body/subject/name or the admin override), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Cria um novo template de e-mail reutilizável na biblioteca") and pins down where it lives ("aba 'E-mail' de /templates"). It also explicitly separates the tool from create_whatsapp_template/update_email_template by scoping it to the reusable email-template library that is not consumed automatically by existing cadences.

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 tells the agent the practical context: the template becomes available for copying in the StepEditor of any future cadence via "📧 Template", and is NOT applied to existing cadences. That is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming siblings (e.g. list_email_templates for checking duplicates, create_whatsapp_template for the WhatsApp equivalent), so no explicit alternative routing.

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

All Radar noEixo 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?