List journey templates in the workspace, returning the journey IDs and version state of each. Optionally filter by version (published or draft).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor | |
| version | No | Filter by version state. Defaults to published. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover that. It adds context about what is returned (IDs and version state) and the optional version filter. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (cursor usage), ordering, or any limits, though the cursor parameter is in the schema. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
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?
A single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and then mentions the optional filter. Every word earns its place; no waste.
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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, what it returns, and the filter option. It lacks explicit pagination details (but the cursor is in the schema) and doesn't differentiate from siblings, but for a read-only list tool, this is fairly complete. The only minor gap is not mentioning any default behavior or limits, but that's acceptable.
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% (both cursor and version have descriptions). The description mentions the version filter but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already documents parameters well, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds little beyond the schema.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('journey templates'), and scope ('in the workspace'), plus what it returns (IDs and version state). It differentiates from siblings like list_journey_versions and get_journey, though the name 'list_journeys' might overlap with list_journey_templates; however, the description explicitly says 'journey templates', so it's clear.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. It doesn't mention that there are sibling tools like list_journey_templates or list_journey_versions, nor does it explain when this tool is preferred over them. The description only implies its function but doesn't help an agent choose among similar list tools.
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.
