Get the Courier SDK installation guide for a specific platform. For client-side SDKs (React, iOS, Android, Flutter, React Native), also generates a sample JWT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | User ID for JWT generation (client-side SDKs only). Defaults to "example_user". | |
| platform | Yes | The platform to get installation guide for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add extra context. It discloses that client-side SDKs generate a sample JWT, which is a behavioral trait beyond a simple read operation and helps the agent understand side outputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the JWT detail is a useful supplement rather than repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-oriented tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns (installation guide) and the extra output for client-side platforms (sample JWT). No output schema exists, but the description provides enough for an agent to infer the basic return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both platform and user_id clearly. The description reiterates the client-side/JWT behavior, which is helpful context but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Courier SDK installation guide') scoped by platform. It also names the client-side platforms that trigger JWT generation, which clearly distinguishes this from other get_* tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when an installation guide is needed, and it notes that client-side SDKs also produce a sample JWT. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives such as generate_jwt_for_user, which could create ambiguity for agents trying to decide between standalone JWT generation and this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly organized as distinct resource/action pairs, but several clusters are easy to confuse: list subscription tools (add_subscribers_to_list vs bulk_subscribe_to_list vs subscribe_user_to_list), message vs message-content vs message-history retrieval, and the many journey/journey-template list/get tools. Detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but the sheer number of near-identical verb/resource names creates real misselection risk.
Almost all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, replace_, send_, publish_, archive_). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: courier_installation_guide is noun-first, and add_bulk_users sits awkwardly next to the bulk_add_* family, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
144 tools is an extreme working-set size for an agent to hold and choose from, far beyond the reasonable 3–15 range. Even for a broad platform like Courier, this should be split into focused sub-servers (templates, journeys, users, lists, preferences, etc.) to remain usable.
The surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering sending, templates, journeys, automations, users, tenants, lists, preferences, providers, routing, brands, audiences, translations, digests, bulk jobs, and audit events. Notable gaps exist—automation template CRUD and digest schedule management are missing—but most workflows can still be completed with workarounds.
