Skip to main content
Glama

Courier

by io.github.trycourier

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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
journey_idYesThe journey template ID that owns this notification
notification_idYesThe notification template ID

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that it 'Overwrites all elements' and that the template remains a draft, reinforcing the destructive and idempotent put semantics. It also clearly states the limitation that publishing is a separate step, which is valuable behavioral information not present in the structured 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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed immediately by the key limitation about draft state. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

For a destructive, idempotent mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavioral context: what is replaced, that it is all elements, and that publishing is out of scope. It does not explain return values, but that is a minor gap given the clarity of the rest.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, including the DRAFT-only state constraint and the semantics of elements, notification_id, and journey_id. The description adds limited parameter-level meaning, mostly reinforcing that 'elements' are fully overwritten, so it meets the baseline without going beyond it.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Replace') and the resource ('elemental content of a journey-scoped notification template'), and further clarifies that it 'Overwrites all elements.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing scope ('journey-scoped') and full-content replacement, though it does not explicitly name a competing sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: this tool edits draft templates and cannot publish them, with the 'stays a draft' limitation explicitly stated. It does not, however, give explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like put_notification_content or put_notification_element, so the usage boundaries are not fully exhaustive.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources