AestheticsPro by Cotlet

Create email template in AestheticsPro

aestheticspro_create_email_template

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create email template in the user's own AestheticsPro account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in AestheticsPro step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser. AestheticsPro's official API: AestheticsPro offers "Custom API solutions" only as custom work on its $350 a month Enterprise plan, arranged with AestheticsPro, and publishes no public API documentation or self-serve API key page (checked 11 Nov 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aestheticspro_create_email_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces it precisely: 'opens nothing by itself'. It goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), the required follow-up tooling (cotlet_browser_*), and the reason direct API access is impossible (no public API, Enterprise-only custom work). The 'checked 11 Nov 2026' note adds provenance, though the API sentence is clumsily repeated.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The key behavioral fact (returns guidance, opens nothing) is front-loaded, which is good. But the closing sentences are redundant — 'AestheticsPro's official API: AestheticsPro offers "Custom API solutions"' repeats the subject and the pricing/plan detail is verbose for what amounts to 'no usable API exists'.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the agent needs: it is read-only, returns procedural instructions rather than performing the action, and names the tool family that must complete the work. The only gap is that it does not characterize the format or granularity of the returned steps beyond 'screens, buttons, fields'.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the schema needs compensating for, and the description correctly implies no input is required beyond the target account.

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 the specific resource (email template) and is unusually explicit that the tool does not create anything itself but 'Returns how to do it in AestheticsPro step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. This resolves the ambiguity created by the 'create_' name prefix, though the name/behavior tension means an agent must read the body to know what actually happens.

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?

It gives a clear two-step workflow: call this first for instructions, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser'. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like aestheticspro_create_email_list or aestheticspro_create_sms_template, and it does not state when this guidance-only approach should be preferred over any direct path.

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

All AestheticsPro by Cotlet 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?