Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@vitrion/zentria-mcp

@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official
by vitrionbv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create-stl-sms-template

Create an STL SMS template by specifying a name and body, enabling SMS content reuse in Zentria CRM.

Instructions

Create an STL SMS template (POST /api/public/stl/sms-templates). Scope: stl:write.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create-stl-sms-template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesSMS template body.
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the side effect (creation), HTTP method, and required scope (stl:write). It does not mention response shape, validation errors, or duplicate handling, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the endpoint and scope with no filler or redundant 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 simple two-parameter create operation with an explicit endpoint and scope, the description is nearly complete. It omits return value details and any uniqueness or validation expectations, but those are not critical given the simple schema and surrounding CRUD sibling tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema documents 'body' with a description but leaves 'name' undocumented, and the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. However, the parameter names are intuitive and the resource context ('STL SMS template') clarifies their meaning, so the description provides minimal added value without creating confusion.

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 description states exactly what the tool does: 'Create an STL SMS template' with a specific endpoint. The create verb clearly differentiates it from sibling list/get/update/delete-stl-sms-template tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' and the resource name, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. It is adequate but relies on inference.

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