Skip to main content
Glama
gray-wilbee

fub-mcp

by gray-wilbee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

post_templates_merge

Render an email template with multiple recipients to preview a combined greeting without sending any email.

Instructions

Merge an email template with multiple recipients. (POST /templates/merge) Despite the name, this almost certainly does NOT send anything — inferred from its identical-shaped sibling post_text_message_templates_merge, which was verified live 2026-09 (firing it at a real phone number produced no delivery and no new record in list_text_messages, only a rendered string back); the email variant itself wasn't separately fired to avoid sending an unwanted email. It's a preview/render utility for the edge case of one message greeting multiple recipients at once (e.g. "Hey Bob, Alice and Carol...") — useful for composing that combined greeting, not for actually delivering it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
extraBodyNoExtra raw JSON body fields not explicitly listed above — e.g. custom.* fields when creating/updating people or deals. Keys and values are sent as-is.
extraQueryNoExtra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is.
recipientsNoList of recipients in the To: field of this email.
templateIdNoThe ID of the email template.
mergePersonIdNoPerson ID to use for merge fields like %contact_name%.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does an exceptional job: it states the tool 'almost certainly does NOT send anything', explains the inference from a live-verified sibling, and describes the rendered-string output. This candidly discloses the most important behavioral nuance.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and caveat, and every sentence earns its place. It is a bit verbose with the verification narrative, but that detail is valuable given the misleading name.

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 preview utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical aspects: what it does, what it does not do, the edge case it serves, and a hint at the return value. It does not fully specify required inputs or auth expectations, but these are minor for this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds overall context about multiple recipients and greeting composition but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Merge an email template with multiple recipients') and immediately clarifies the actual behavior: preview/render utility, not delivery. It differentiates from the sibling post_text_message_templates_merge and explicitly disambiguates the misleading name.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool: for composing a combined greeting to multiple recipients, and when not to use it: 'not for actually delivering it.' It provides a strong exclusion but does not explicitly name an alternative sending tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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