Get a journey-scoped notification template by notification ID. Pass version=draft to retrieve the working draft (required before the template has been published). Defaults to published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version to retrieve: "draft", "published" (default), or "vN" | |
| journey_id | Yes | The journey template ID that owns this notification | |
| notification_id | Yes | The notification template ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the behavioral nuance that draft retrieval is required before publication and that published is the default. This goes beyond structured fields by explaining template lifecycle state.
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 tight sentences front-load the operation and resource, then clarify version behavior. No filler or redundant restatement.
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 three-parameter read with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers retrieval target, version selection, and default behavior. It does not specify response shape, but the tool name and 'Get' semantics make that unnecessary.
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 coverage is 100%, with version, journey_id, and notification_id already described. The description restates notification ID and version semantics, adding only the lifecycle hint about needing draft before publication; it does not materially expand parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific operation ('Get'), a resource ('journey-scoped notification template'), and the lookup key ('by notification ID'). The 'journey-scoped' qualifier distinguishes it from generic notification getters, and the name aligns with the description.
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?
Provides concrete guidance on selecting version=draft for unpublished templates and notes the published default. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but 'journey-scoped' signals when this read is appropriate versus generic notification getters.
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.
