Add reusable quick-reply templates for studio customer messages by specifying a title, body, and optional shortcut.
Create a new quick-reply canned response template for the studio
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Message body template to send to customers | |
| title | Yes | Descriptive title or label for the canned response (e.g. 'Standard Greeting') | |
| shortcut | No | Optional short identifier or slash shortcut (e.g. '/lead-time') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'create'. It does not disclose whether titles must be unique, whether creation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is arguably too terse for a creation tool and omits information rather than trimming fat.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not say what happens after creation, whether the new template is returned or must be fetched via list_canned_responses, or how shortcut collisions are handled. It is incomplete for the complexity of the operation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (title, body, shortcut) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: create a new canned response template, scoped to the studio. An agent can distinguish it from list_canned_responses, but the description never names the sibling or clarifies the relationship, so it stops short of 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_canned_responses or send_inbox_reply, nor any note about prerequisites or when a canned response is preferable to an ad-hoc reply. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.