google-workspace-alias-mcp

create_template

Create new email templates using {{variable}} syntax to insert dynamic content in subject and body.

Instructions

Create a new email template with variables (use {{variable}} syntax)

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "displayName": "<displayName>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Email body template (use {{variable}} for variables)
`name`	Yes	Template name (used as ID)
`subject`	Yes	Email subject template (use {{variable}} for variables)
`displayName`	Yes	Human-readable template name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It does not disclose important behaviors such as idempotency, what happens if a template with the same name exists, or the scope of changes (destructive or not). Only the variable syntax is mentioned.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the essential purpose and a key detail without extra words.

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 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created template object or a success status) or error conditions. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap.

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% (all 4 parameters described in schema). The description adds value for 'subject' and 'body' by noting the {{variable}} syntax, but 'name' and 'displayName' are not elaborated beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create', the resource 'email template', and a distinctive feature 'with variables (use {{variable}} syntax)', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_template, list_templates, etc.

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?

The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_label or send_template_email. No prerequisites or context for appropriate use are provided.

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