Publish the current draft of a journey-scoped notification template. Optionally pass version to roll back to a prior version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version to roll back to (e.g. "v1"). Omit to publish current draft. | |
| 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?
With annotations only saying readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, the description adds the key behavior: publishing the current draft and optionally rolling back to a prior version. This meaningfully explains state mutation without contradicting the annotations.
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?
One concise sentence front-loads the primary action and punctuates the optional variant. No filler or repetition of parameter names.
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 three-parameter publish action with no output schema, the description supplies the essential scope and the optional rollback behavior. A bit more detail about the effect on existing published versions could make it fully complete, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value only for version, clarifying it is used to roll back to a prior version, while notification_id and journey_id remain covered by 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Publish the current draft of a journey-scoped notification template.' This makes the operation distinct from siblings like publish_journey or publish_notification by adding the journey-template scope.
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 default use case (publish current draft) and the optional version-rollback branch. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the journey-scoped wording gives enough context for an agent to route to this tool among the publish_* siblings.
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.
