sparkpost-mcp

create_template

Create a new email template by providing a unique ID, name, subject, HTML content, and sender email.

Instructions

Create a new email template

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "html": "<html>",
      "from_email": "<from_email>"
    },
    "name": "create_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Template ID/slug
`html`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`text`	No
`subject`	Yes
`from_name`	No
`from_email`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action, omitting critical details such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, required permissions, error states, or response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (5 words), which helps readability, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 7 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, or side effects, making the tool hard to use correctly without external documentation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is low (14%), and the description adds no parameter information. Even the schema only describes 'id' as 'Template ID/slug'. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter meaning in the schema.

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 'Create a new email template' clearly states the action (create) and resource (email template), distinguishing it from siblings like get_template (read) and update_template (modify).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_template or import tools. No prerequisites, context, or exclusionary conditions are mentioned.

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