@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

Update Template

listmonk_update_template

DestructiveIdempotent

Updates fields on an existing Listmonk template by ID and changes only the values you provide, so unchanged fields stay as they are.

Instructions

Updates fields on an existing template by id. Only provided fields are changed.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "listmonk_update_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Numeric id.
`body`	No
`name`	No
`type`	No
`subject`	No
`body_source`	No
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' for human-readable text (default) or 'json' for machine-readable data.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The sentence 'Only provided fields are changed' adds real value beyond the annotations by clarifying partial-update rather than full-replace semantics, which is consistent with idempotentHint=true. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and the description never explains what can be destroyed (e.g. overwriting body/body_source or changing type) or what permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences, verb-first and front-loaded, with the patch-semantics qualifier in second position. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves no room for the disambiguation the tool needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a seven-parameter mutation flagged destructive with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits what is overwritten, whether type changes are safe, and what the response contains. The patch-semantics note is the one piece of genuinely load-bearing context supplied.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 29%, so the description needs to carry parameter meaning and does not. It never clarifies the distinction between body and body_source, the meaning of the type enum values (campaign, campaign_visual, tx), or subject. Only 'id' and the vague notion of 'fields' are echoed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('template') plus the selector ('by id'), which cleanly separates it from listmonk_create_template, listmonk_get_template, and listmonk_delete_template. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus listmonk_create_template or listmonk_set_default_template, nor any mention of prerequisites such as fetching the template first with listmonk_get_template. 'Only provided fields are changed' implies patch semantics but is not framed as usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server