Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Baasix MCP Server

Baasix MCP Server

by tspvivek
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

baasix_update_template

Update an email template's subject, description, or body to customize authentication, invitation, password reset, welcome, and verification emails.

Instructions

Update an email template's subject, description, or body content.

TEMPLATE TYPES:

  • magic_link: Magic link authentication emails

  • invite: User invitation emails

  • password_reset: Password reset emails

  • welcome: Welcome emails

  • verification: Email verification emails

AVAILABLE VARIABLES:

  • User: {{user.firstName}}, {{user.lastName}}, {{user.fullName}}, {{user.email}}

  • Tenant: {{tenant.name}}, {{tenant.logo}}, {{tenant.website}}

  • Auth: {{magicLink}}, {{magicCode}}, {{resetPasswordLink}}, {{inviteLink}}

  • DateTime: {{currentDate}}, {{currentTime}}, {{currentYear}}

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": "baasix_update_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTemplate ID (UUID)
bodyNoTemplate body as HTML string or GrapesJS project JSON
subjectNoEmail subject line (supports variables like {{user.firstName}})
isActiveNoWhether the template is active
descriptionNoTemplate description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.7

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool updates template fields and lists valid variables, but it does not explain partial-update semantics, whether body can be HTML or GrapesJS JSON (the schema does), validation behavior, error cases, or authentication/authorization requirements. The description is not misleading, but it under-discloses the operation's behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation and then organized into scannable, clearly labeled sections. The template types and available variables are relevant and compactly presented, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The core operation and parameters are clear, and the schema covers all field descriptions. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool: it omits partial-versus-full update behavior, response/return expectations, and potential validation constraints. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by listing template types and the exact variable names usable in fields like subject and body. This gives an agent practical context for constructing parameter values without repeating schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update an email template's subject, description, or body content.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_template and list_templates, and the resource is unambiguous. The only minor omission is isActive, but the schema covers it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and never mentions exclusions or sibling selection criteria. The template types and variables add context, but an agent is not told when update_template should be chosen over get_template or other update-style tools.

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