Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Creatomate MCP Server

Creatomate MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update a template

update_template
Destructive

Update a project template by ID, changing only supplied name, source, or tags. Requires at least one field and confirmed mutation; does not duplicate, archive, or retry.

Instructions

Confirmed PATCH changes only supplied name/source/tags. Source or tags replace those fields; requires at least one change. No automatic duplicate/archive/retry.

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": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNonempty new template name.
tagsNoExact tags; comma inside one tag is rejected because the native list query is comma-separated.
sourceNo
accountNoExact private project profile label; no inherited/global key fallback.
confirmNoMust be true for this exact user-requested mutation or paid render.
template_idYesExact project template/render/feed ID. No URL, slash, traversal or query string.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: PATCH-style partial update, replacement semantics for source/tags, minimum-one-change requirement, and the absence of auto duplicate/archive/retry. These go beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core mutation semantics front-loaded. It is dense to the point of being telegraphic, but nothing is redundant and every clause carries 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 6-param mutation with a nested, undescribed source object and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: partial update, replacement semantics, and the one-change minimum. Minor gap: it never mentions the confirm flag, relying on the schema for that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 83%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning (name, tags, account, confirm, template_id). The description nonetheless adds non-obvious semantics not in the schema: that source and tags REPLACE rather than merge, and that at least one change is required. This usefully compensates for the undescribed nested 'source' object.

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 (PATCH/update) and resource (template) and clarifies that only supplied name/source/tags fields are changed. The telegraphic phrasing 'Confirmed PATCH changes only supplied name/source/tags' is jargony but an agent can determine the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_template/delete_template, though the name makes the mutation scope clear.

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?

Provides real constraints—'requires at least one change' and 'No automatic duplicate/archive/retry'—which tell the agent the guard conditions. However it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives (create_template, delete_template) or the confirm prerequisite. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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