Skip to main content
Glama
gambot-ai

gambot-mcp

Official
by gambot-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create template

gambot_create_template

Create WhatsApp templates for Meta approval using text, media, variables, and buttons. Supports automatic media upload and header injection via public URL.

Instructions

Create a new WhatsApp template (submitted to Meta for approval). Name must be English, lowercase_with_underscores. Components use the full Meta shape and support: a TEXT or media (IMAGE/VIDEO/DOCUMENT) HEADER, a BODY with {{1}} variables, a FOOTER, and BUTTONS (QUICK_REPLY / URL / PHONE_NUMBER). For a media header you can either put example.header_handle on the HEADER component yourself (upload it first with gambot_upload_template_media), or simply pass headerMediaUrl (a public URL) and let Gambot upload it and inject the handle.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
categoryYes
languageYesLanguage code, e.g. he / en
componentsYesTemplate components. Examples — HEADER text: {type:"HEADER",format:"TEXT",text:"Hi {{1}}",example:{header_text:["Dana"]}} | HEADER media: {type:"HEADER",format:"IMAGE",example:{header_handle:["<handle>"]}} | BODY: {type:"BODY",text:"Your order {{1}} shipped",example:{body_text:[["1234"]]}} | FOOTER: {type:"FOOTER",text:"Reply STOP to opt out"} | BUTTONS: {type:"BUTTONS",buttons:[{type:"QUICK_REPLY",text:"Track"},{type:"URL",text:"Open",url:"https://x.co/{{1}}",example:["abc"]},{type:"PHONE_NUMBER",text:"Call",phone_number:"+972500000000"}]}
gmbtMediaIdNoOptional Gambot media id (for preview).
headerFormatNoFormat for headerMediaUrl (default IMAGE).
headerMediaUrlNoOptional public media URL. If set, Gambot uploads it to Meta and injects the header_handle into the HEADER component.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the async approval process, the strict naming constraint, and the alternative media handling (either manual header_handle injection or automatic upload via headerMediaUrl). It does not cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but it discloses the core side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is a single, tightly written paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then moves to constraints, component types, and media handling without redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters and a nested components array, the description covers the essential usage: purpose, naming, component shapes, and media options. It does not explain the response format (no output schema) or error scenarios, but it covers the main decision points. The schema's component examples fill remaining gaps, so overall it is adequately complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 71% (5 of 7 params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial value: it explains the naming format, the two media-header approaches, and the component structure with examples. This goes well beyond the schema's enum and type definitions, especially for the tricky components array.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a new WhatsApp template.' It specifies the outcome ('submitted to Meta for approval') and distinguishes this tool from siblings like list/get/delete templates by focusing on creation. The naming convention and component details further clarify its unique role.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool and even references the sibling gambot_upload_template_media as a prerequisite for one path. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with other template-related tools beyond the media upload. It implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions.

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