Unitpost

Sms templates · create

sms_templates_create

Create an SMS template as a draft from name and body (max 10 segments). Publish it with sms_templates_update { status: "published" }.

Scope: templates:write.

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "sms_templates_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	`{ name, body? }` — `body` is plain text with `{{variables}}` (max 10 SMS segments); may be empty for a draft.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`hint`	No
`status`	No
`warning`	No
`request_id`	No
`retry_after_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: the record is created in draft state (not live), the 10-segment limit, and the required `templates:write` scope. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short clauses: what it does, the segment limit, the publish follow-up, the scope. Front-loaded with the action and free of filler.

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 one-parameter create tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers lifecycle (draft), limit, and auth scope. The only gap is not clarifying the name/body nesting that the schema expresses awkwardly.

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 baseline is 3, and the description largely repeats the schema's own `max 10 segments` constraint. It also introduces ambiguity by describing input as "`name` and `body`" while the schema exposes a single required object parameter named `body` that nests both — the agent gets no help resolving that mismatch.

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 ("Create an SMS template") plus a meaningful scope qualifier ("as a draft"), which distinguishes it from sms_templates_update and sms_templates_list in the sibling set. An agent can decide between create and update without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit next step ("Publish it with sms_templates_update { status: 'published' }"), which routes the agent correctly for the two-step draft/publish flow. It does not say when NOT to use it (e.g. use sms_templates_update to modify an existing template), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

All Unitpost 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?