Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
followupboss-mcp-server

followupboss-mcp-server

by mindwear-capitian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

mergeTemplate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Merges an email template with a person's CRM data and returns the rendered email without sending it, letting you preview personalized messages before delivery.

Instructions

Merge an email template with a person's data and return the rendered email. Does not send anything.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recipientsNoRecipients in the To: field. cc/bcc/from are unused by FUB.
templateIdNoEmail template ID
mergePersonIdNoPerson ID whose data fills merge fields like %contact_name%

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / mergePersonId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Person ID whose data fills merge fields like %contact_name%",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / personId
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Person ID",
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / recipients
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Recipients in the To: field. cc/bcc/from are unused by FUB.",
+  "properties": {
+    "to": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "email": {
+            "description": "Recipient email",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Recipient name",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / templateId / description
      Previous value: -"Template ID"New value: +"Email template ID"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "templateId",
-  "personId"
-]New value: +[]
  2. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this in domain terms ("Does not send anything"), which is genuinely useful for an email tool where accidental sending is the main risk, but it says nothing about unresolved merge fields, error behavior, or whether rendering requires a valid template.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the negative constraint (no send) immediately after. There is nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns (a rendered email, useful since there is no output schema), and the key side-effect boundary. The remaining gap is that the schema lists no required parameters while the description implies both templateId and mergePersonId matter, which is left unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters plus the nested recipient object are already documented. The description only loosely maps "template" to templateId and "a person's data" to mergePersonId, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Merge an email template with a person's data and return the rendered email" states a specific verb (merge/render) plus both resources (template, person) and the result. It implicitly separates itself from mergeTextMessageTemplate and the create/send-style siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Does not send anything" tells the agent this is a preview/render operation rather than a send, which is the key usage distinction. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (e.g., template and person must both exist), and does not point to a sibling for the sending case.

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