Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
customer-replies-mcp-server

customer-replies-mcp-server

by alsaltitop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update Reply Template

replies_update_template
Idempotent

Update specific fields of an existing reply template. Only provided fields are changed; modifying the body automatically re-extracts variables.

Instructions

Update fields of an existing template. Only provided fields change. If body changes, variables are re-extracted automatically.

Args:

  • id (string): existing template id

  • title, category, language, tone, body, tags: all optional

Returns: the updated template JSON.

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": "replies_update_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesExisting template id
bodyNo
tagsNo
toneNoReply tone
titleNo
categoryNo
languageNoTemplate language: 'ar' Arabic or 'en' English

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description adds non-obvious behavior: 'If body changes, variables are re-extracted automatically.' Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so this is additive.

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?

Description is short, front-loaded with main action, and uses a clear bullet list. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, description covers return value ('updated template JSON') and key behavior. Missing some nuance but adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is low (43%), but description only lists parameters as optional without explaining semantics beyond what schema already provides. Does not compensate fully for coverage gaps.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update fields of an existing template' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'replies_add_template' and 'replies_delete_template'.

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?

Description mentions 'Only provided fields change' and auto re-extraction on body change, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools