erp2pdf-studio-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_email_template

Update an existing Odoo email template by changing only the fields you supply; set remove_attachment=true to stop attaching a PDF.

Instructions

Change an email template; only the fields given change. remove_attachment=true stops attaching a PDF.

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": {
      "email_template_id": "<email_template_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_email_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`subject`	No
`body_html`	No
`bind_model`	No
`description`	No
`email_template_id`	Yes
`remove_attachment`	No
`attach_template_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load; it does disclose genuinely useful behavior — patch semantics ('only the fields given change') and an attachment side effect. It omits permissions, validation, whether attach_template_id attaches the PDF, and what happens to fields left null, so the disclosure is partial.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the core patch semantics front-loaded and no filler. The attachment sentence is compact but cryptic enough that its brevity costs clarity.

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?

A mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations and no output schema needs to explain side effects, required permissions and the attachment/template interaction; the description covers only a fragment of that surface.

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?

8 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains only remove_attachment and does so vaguely ('stops attaching a PDF'). The relationship between attach_template_id and remove_attachment, and the meaning of bind_model's enum values, are entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource: 'Change an email template'. However the sibling list contains both update_template and update_email_template, and the description does nothing to differentiate them.

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 hint about when to pick this over update_template/create_email_template, no prerequisites (template must exist), and no note that only the given fields are touched beyond the bare statement of patch semantics.

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