Get a journey by ID. Pass version=draft to retrieve the working draft, or version=vN for a historical version. Defaults to published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version to retrieve: "draft", "published" (default), or a version string like "v001" | |
| journey_id | Yes | The journey template ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, and the description adds behavior beyond it: how draft, historical, and default published versions are resolved. It does not describe invalid-version or not-found behavior, but for a read-only getter with this annotation, the added transparency is meaningful.
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?
Three short sentences and no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the conditional version behavior and the default, so an agent can parse the essential behavior immediately.
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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers required ID and version selection, including the default. The main remaining gap is clarifying the relationship between a journey and a journey template, which is relevant because multiple sibling getters exist and the parameter is described as a template ID.
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 fully documents both parameters. The description's version wording ('draft', 'vN', defaults to published) mostly restates the schema's version values, adding only 'working draft' as a minor clarification.
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 action ('Get a journey by ID') and provides concrete version semantics. However, it does not distinguish get_journey from the closely related sibling get_journey_template, and the schema's journey_id is described as a 'journey template ID', which adds ambiguity about exactly which resource is returned.
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 version instructions ('Pass version=draft... vN... Defaults to published') give useful invocation context. The description never says when to choose this tool over list_journey_versions, get_journey_template, or get_journey_template_content, so tool-selection guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.
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.
