jotae-mcp

update_template

Update an existing template by changing only the desired fields. Edit name, body, subject, sender, destination, or media content.

Instructions

Edita o conteúdo de um template existente. Passe apenas os campos que deseja alterar.

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": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Novo corpo da mensagem
`name`	No
`subject`	No	Novo assunto (e-mail)
`media_url`	No
`media_type`	No
`destination`	No
`sender_name`	No	Nome do remetente (e-mail)
`template_id`	Yes	ID do template

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Edita' (edits) which implies mutation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, or other important behaviors expected for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the action and resource.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, constraints, or the overall effect on the template object.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds generic instruction about partial updates but does not explain specific parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The value added is minimal.

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?

The description clearly states the action (edit/update) and the resource (template). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_template or get_template by emphasizing modification of existing content.

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?

The instruction 'Passe apenas os campos que deseja alterar' provides some usage guidance, but there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_template or list_templates.

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