Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Courier

by io.github.trycourier
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

put_journey_template_content

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace the elemental content of a journey-scoped notification template. Overwrites all elements. The template stays a draft; making it live is a separate step this tool cannot perform.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "notification_id": "<notification_id>",
      "journey_id": "<journey_id>",
      "elements": "<elements>"
    },
    "name": "put_journey_template_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoTemplate state after update. Must be "DRAFT". These tools cannot publish.
versionNoContent version string (e.g. "2022-01-01"). Server defaults when omitted.
elementsYesArray of elemental content nodes. Likely must be wrapped in a channel block, the same way create_journey_template's content requires — not independently confirmed for this call, but they write the same field. Example: [{ type: "channel", channel: "email", elements: [{ type: "text", content: "Hello!" }] }].
journey_idYesThe journey template ID that owns this notification. Copy it exactly, character for character, from the response that returned it — never retype it from memory or reconstruct it.
notification_idYesThe notification template ID. Copy it exactly, character for character, from the response that returned it — never retype it from memory or reconstruct it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / elements / description
      Previous value: -"Array of elemental content nodes"New value: +"Array of elemental content nodes. Likely must be wrapped in a channel block, the same way create_journey_template's content requires — not independently confirmed for this call, but they write the same field. Example: [{ type: \"channel\", channel: \"email\", elements: [{ type: \"text\", content: \"Hello!\" }] }]."
    • changedInput schema / properties / journey_id / description
      Previous value: -"The journey template ID that owns this notification"New value: +"The journey template ID that owns this notification. Copy it exactly, character for character, from the response that returned it — never retype it from memory or reconstruct it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / notification_id / description
      Previous value: -"The notification template ID"New value: +"The notification template ID. Copy it exactly, character for character, from the response that returned it — never retype it from memory or reconstruct it."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Template state after update"New value: +"Template state after update. Must be \"DRAFT\". These tools cannot publish."
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "DRAFT",
-  "PUBLISHED"
-]New value: +[
+  "DRAFT"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the draft constraint and the fact that overwriting all elements is destructive. It also warns in the elements parameter about the channel wrapper uncertainty, which is honest about limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The main description is three concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key constraint. Parameter descriptions are detailed but reside in the schema, not cluttering the main description. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core behavior, draft status, and overwrite semantics. The parameter descriptions handle ID copying and elements structure. The only minor gap is not describing the return value (no output schema exists), but that is not required. The uncertainty about elements structure is honestly flagged, which is good.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: for journey_id and notification_id it instructs to copy exactly from the response, never retype. For elements it provides a concrete example and notes the structure is not independently confirmed. The state parameter clarifies that only DRAFT is allowed and these tools cannot publish.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Replace'), a specific resource ('elemental content of a journey-scoped notification template'), and a key behavior ('Overwrites all elements'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like put_notification_content and put_journey_template_locale by emphasizing journey scoping and full replacement. The draft/publish distinction further clarifies scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (for journey templates) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. It notes the template stays a draft and that publishing is a separate step, but does not point to a specific sibling tool for publishing. This is contextual but not explicit routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Courier toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources