create_templateCreate a new dynamic transactional template to structure reusable email content for automated transactional messages through SendGrid.
Create a new dynamic transactional template
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the template | |
| generation | No | Template generation type | dynamic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide no distinctive behavioral hints beyond indicating this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no context about side effects, permissions, duplicate handling, or whether existing templates are overwritten. Since this is a create operation with no safety annotations, the description should disclose more about what 'create' entails in this system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the qualifiers add specificity without bloating the description. It could earn a 5 if it also packed in usage guidance, but as a concise statement it is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and several closely related sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what makes a template 'dynamic' or 'transactional', whether the operation is scoped to a particular workspace, or how it differs from create_html_template. An agent would need to inspect other tool schemas to confidently select and invoke this one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'dynamic' qualifier loosely aligns with the generation parameter default but does not add meaningful detail about how name or generation are used, nor does it clarify the significance of 'legacy' vs 'dynamic'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('template'), adding the qualifiers 'dynamic' and 'transactional' which distinguish it from generic template creation. However, it does not explain what a dynamic transactional template is, and 'dynamic' partially overlaps with the generation parameter's enum value, so the reader is left to infer the full scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as create_html_template or create_template_version. The qualifier 'dynamic' hints at a distinction, but no explicit selection criteria or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which template creation path is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.