Publish the current draft of a journey, making it live and invokable. Pass version to roll back to a prior published version instead of publishing the draft. Returns 404 if there is no draft to publish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Historical version to roll back to (e.g. "v001"). Omit to publish the current draft. | |
| journey_id | Yes | The journey template ID to publish |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the operation transitions a draft to live/invokable, that passing version switches to rollback, and that a 404 is returned when there is no draft. It does not detail success responses or invalid-version behavior, but annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent action.
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 cover the operation, the version alternative, and a key error condition. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, conditional version behavior, and one important error. It could mention the success response or invalid-version behavior, but the essentials for invoking correctly are present.
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% and both parameters are described there, including the 'omit to publish current draft' behavior. The description repeats that semantic rather than adding new parameter detail, so it does not exceed the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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 names a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('current draft of a journey'), and clarifies the desired effect ('making it live and invokable'). It also separates the rollback behavior from draft publishing, which distinguishes this tool from publish_journey_template and other publish/create 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?
It clearly states the primary use case (publish current draft) and the alternative mode within the tool (pass version to roll back to a prior published version). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusion, but the entity name 'journey' and the behavior are clear enough in context.
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.
