listmonk-mcp

Update template

template_update

Update an existing Listmonk template by changing only the fields you provide, such as name, subject, or body.

Instructions

Update a template. Only the fields you pass change.

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": "template_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`body`	No
`name`	No
`subject`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful patch semantics that unspecified fields remain unchanged, but omits auth requirements, not-found behavior, and side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key partial-update rule. No unnecessary text.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition is too terse. It leaves an agent without field-level semantics, required-id context, or validation/error expectations.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely implies that non-id fields are optional; it does not explain that id is required or clarify the meaning of body, name, and subject.

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 and resource ('Update a template'), clearly distinguishing it from template_create, template_delete, template_get, and templates_list by verb. It does not state scope or which fields are updatable, but the core 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Only the fields you pass change' implies partial-update usage and gives useful guidance on how to call it. However, it does not say when to use this instead of template_create, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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