Fetch the elemental content of a journey-scoped notification template. Pass version=draft for the working draft, or 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 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, matching the 'Fetch' verb, so there is no contradiction. The description adds useful version/default behavior beyond the annotation, but it does not describe the return structure or define 'elemental content'.
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 with the core verb and resource front-loaded. Version logic is presented compactly, and every sentence contributes without redundancy.
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?
The description covers the key decisions an agent must make: what to fetch, the journey scope, and which version to request, including defaults. Required parameters are documented in the schema and read-only safety is in annotations. The main gap is the lack of output shape and explicit sibling differentiation, but this is adequate for a simple read operation.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds light clarification by calling 'draft' the working draft and 'vN' a historical version, but the schema already documents draft, published, version strings, and the default.
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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('elemental content of a journey-scoped notification template'). The 'journey-scoped' qualifier helps distinguish it from generic get_notification_content tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings.
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 explicit version handling instructions: pass 'draft' for the working draft, 'vN' for historical versions, and it defaults to published. This is clear context for invocation, but it does not explicitly compare against alternative get_content tools, so exclusions are implied rather than stated.
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.
