get_tenant_template
Read-only
Get a tenant notification template association by template ID.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_id | Yes | The tenant ID | |
| template_id | Yes | The template ID |
Courier
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—nothing about return shape, not-found behavior, auth requirements, or what 'association' means operationally.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with documented parameters and readOnlyHint, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves ambiguity around closely related siblings and does not describe what the returned association contains. Since there is no output schema, a little more context would make it fully complete.
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%, with both tenant_id and template_id described in the schema. The description only adds 'by template ID,' which partially restates the schema and omits the tenant_id dimension, so it adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a tenant notification template association' looked up 'by template ID.' This is specific enough to separate it from list-style tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings like get_tenant_template_version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tenant_templates or get_tenant_template_version. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative routing mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.