template_createCreate a Listmonk email template for campaigns or transactional sends by specifying name, type, and body; campaign bodies must include {{ template "content" . }}.
Create a template. type is 'campaign' (for campaigns) or 'tx' (for transactional sends). body must contain {{ template "content" . }} for campaign templates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| subject | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write to an open world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the important behavioral constraint that campaign bodies must contain the Go template include directive. It says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, validation failures, or what gets created/returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and immediately followed by the two constraints an agent would otherwise get wrong. No filler, though the body requirement could be phrased slightly more tightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two highest-risk inputs (type and body) but is silent on subject semantics and failure modes such as duplicate names. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the remaining parameter gaps keep this at minimum-viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description carries real weight here. It explains the meaning of both enum values and a hard body content constraint, but leaves 'name' and especially 'subject' (which has a default) entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a template'), which is unambiguous against siblings like template_update, template_get, and campaign_create. It does not explicitly contrast itself with template_update, but the create verb plus the schema makes the distinction clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clarifies how to choose between the two type values and adds a hard requirement for the body on campaign templates, which is genuine usage guidance. It gives no guidance on when to use this versus template_update, or what to do if a template with the same name exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.