Skip to main content
Glama

Courier

by io.github.trycourier

create_journey_template

Create a notification template scoped to a journey. Always created as a draft; making it live is a separate step this tool cannot perform. The template can then be referenced in journey send nodes. Example: { journey_id: "j-abc", channel: "email", notification: { name: "Welcome Email", tags: [], brand: null, subscription: null, content: { version: "2022-01-01", elements: [{ type: "text", content: "Hello!" }] } } }. The result carries a "verification" object confirming the new id is really present on the journey. verified:true means the id in this response is safe to reference from a send node. verified:false means it is not visible yet — re-read the journey before referencing it, and do not create a second template to work around it. An "errorKind" of "unauthorized" means the template was created and only the check was refused.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoMust be "DRAFT". These tools cannot publish.
channelYesChannel for this template (e.g. "email", "push", "sms", "inbox")
journey_idYesThe journey template ID
notificationYesNotification template definition
provider_keyNoSpecific provider key to target

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only provide basic flags, all false. The description goes well beyond them: it discloses draft-only creation, the separate publication step, verification semantics for the returned id, and the meaning of errorKind 'unauthorized' including the partial-failure case where the template was actually created. This is unusually transparent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and draft limitation, then adds only high-value context: usage in send nodes, a concrete example, and essential verification/error behavior. Every sentence earns its place despite the length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by explaining the verification object, verified true/false meanings, and unauthorized errorKind. It does not document the full response shape, but it gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the critical post-call result.

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 schema already documents all parameters and nested fields. The description's example illustrates the expected shape but does not add meaningfully new semantics for parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a notification template scoped to a journey.' This distinguishes it from standalone notification tools like create_notification. It also clarifies a key distinguishing constraint, that the template is always created as a draft and cannot be made live by this tool.

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 gives clear context: use this for journey-scoped notification templates, and it explicitly warns that making the template live is a separate step this tool cannot perform. It does not name an alternative sibling directly, but the context is strong enough to route an agent to publish_journey_template for publication.

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

All Courier toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources