Get a specific version of a tenant notification template (e.g. latest, published, or v1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Version identifier (latest, published, or v-prefixed) | |
| tenant_id | Yes | The tenant ID | |
| template_id | Yes | The 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 operation, and the description aligns with that by saying "Get." The description adds useful version-scoping context but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response contents, error behavior, or prerequisites.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that leads with the action and resource, then gives clarifying examples. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 read operation with three fully documented required parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly distinguishing this from get_tenant_template or mentioning how to discover available versions, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.
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 parameters tenant_id, template_id, and version are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats the version value examples that the schema already provides, adding no significant meaning beyond it.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: "Get a specific version of a tenant notification template." It conveys the uniqueness of this tool compared to simpler template retrieval, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as get_tenant_template or list_tenant_templates.
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 description implies this tool is for retrieving a particular template version, with examples like "latest, published, or v1." However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools or when another tool such as get_tenant_template would be more appropriate.
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.
