Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Groundmail

by dev.groundmail.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create template

create_template

Create a draft email template (html or blocks format).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlNoHTML body
nameYesTemplate name
textNoPlain-text body
aliasNoOptional short alias to reference the template by instead of its id
folderNoOptional folder to file the template in; created if it does not exist
formatNoTemplate format (html or blocks)
senderNoSender handle or id (list_senders) the template goes out as when a send sets neither from nor sender
subjectYesSubject line, may contain {{variables}}

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
templateYesThe template

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / sender
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Sender handle or id (list_senders) the template goes out as when a send sets neither from nor sender",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / template / properties / sender_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Sender the template goes out as when a send sets neither from nor sender; null uses the default sender",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / folder
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional folder to file the template in; created if it does not exist",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / template / properties / folder
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Folder the template is filed in, or null",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / template / properties / category / description
      Previous value: -"transactional, product or newsletter"New value: +"transactional or product"
  4. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution beyond that is the 'draft' state — meaning the created template is not yet sendable — which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing about permissions, alias uniqueness, or automatic folder creation beyond what the schema already states.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; verb and resource come first and the format qualifier is parenthetical. It is terse to the point of being slightly under-specified for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema and full parameter documentation are present, so return values and inputs need no explanation. However, for a create mutation in a template lifecycle (draft → publish), the description never explains the draft/publish relationship or which optional fields matter, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100% across all 8 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the html/blocks format enum and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail (e.g. html vs blocks vs text precedence) beyond the field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a draft email template') plus the two supported body formats. 'Draft' implicitly distinguishes it from publish_template, though no sibling is named explicitly and the draft lifecycle is not spelled out.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'draft' suggests the template is not live until publish_template is called, and the format qualifier hints at the html/blocks choice. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. requires a sender/domain), and no stated alternative.

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

All Groundmail toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources