Skip to main content
Glama

replace_journey

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace (update) a journey draft. Full document replacement — include all nodes and properties in the body, the trigger included; anything omitted is deleted. The journey stays a draft; making the change live is a separate step this tool cannot perform. This is where send, delay, branch and exit nodes are added, and send node template IDs must already be scoped to this journey. The result carries a "verification" object read back from the server after the write — check it every time. verified:true means what you asked for is what saved. verified:false names what did not: "fieldMismatches" for node fields that failed to land, "nodeCountMismatch" for a node dropped or added, and "unknownTemplateReferences" for a send node pointing at a template id this journey does not have — almost always a mistyped id, so re-copy it from the create_journey_template or get_journey response it came from. Fix the specific thing named and send the corrected document. Re-sending an identical call changes nothing, and every replace_journey overwrites the whole draft again. An "errorKind" of "unauthorized" means the write itself succeeded and only the read-back was refused: report that as unconfirmed, never as a failed write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesJourney display name
nodesYesComplete array of journey nodes: the trigger first, a terminal exit last, and everything else between them. Use server-assigned node ids from get_journey — do NOT invent new ids. Send node example: { type: "send", channel: "email", message: { template: "nt_journey_1" } } — the template goes inside message, never at node level, and the id is a journey-scoped one returned by create_journey_template rather than a workspace template id. Copy that id character-for-character from the create_journey_template or get_journey response you got it from — never retype or reconstruct it from memory, since a single dropped or altered character produces a different, non-existent id and the reference silently fails to resolve. channel must always be set to one of "email", "sms", "push", "inbox", "slack", or "msteams" on every send node — do not omit it even though the field is optional. An unset channel makes Studio silently render the node as email: for sms, push, and inbox sends this means the wrong title, an Email Address field shown instead of the real recipient field, no provider picker, and a hard-blocked "+Create message" button, with nothing shown to warn the user. The stored recipient data is not lost and delivery is not affected — this only breaks how the journey looks and works for a human editing it in Studio. Delay node example: { type: "delay", mode: "duration", duration: "PT1H" }. Branch node example: { type: "branch", paths: [{ conditions: ["data.plan", "is equal", "pro"], nodes: [] }], default: { nodes: [] } } — paths and default are both required, and the key inside a path is "conditions", not "condition".
stateNoMust be "DRAFT". These tools cannot publish.
enabledNoWhether the journey is active.
journey_idYesThe journey template ID to update

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond annotations by describing the verification read-back, verified:true/false mismatch kinds, idempotent resend behavior, and the unauthorized errorKind nuance. Consistent with destructiveHint and idempotentHint; no contradiction.

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?

Long but dense and front-loaded with the core replace semantics; every sentence adds operational guidance such as verification, idempotency, and error interpretation. Could be broken into shorter labeled paragraphs, but there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is unusually complete: safety, idempotency, publish separation, node construction rules, verification object, and error interpretation are all covered. An agent has enough to call and check success correctly.

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 already covers 100 percent of parameters, but the description adds crucial semantic depth: full-replacement body requirement, node type examples, channel required despite optional in schema, branch path keys, and template-id scoping/copy rule. This materially improves correct invocation.

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?

States clearly that this tool replaces/updates a journey draft via full document replacement, distinguishing it from creation, publishing, and template-scoped operations. The journey stays a draft and making the change live is a separate step this tool cannot perform, which further separates it from publish and live-edit tools.

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?

Gives actionable context: this is where send, delay, branch and exit nodes are added, and it clarifies that making a change live is not possible here. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like create_journey or publish_journey, so the when-not-to-use guidance is inferential rather than explicit.

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

Try in Browser

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.