Import a safe HTML subset as a draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | Safe HTML subset | |
| name | Yes | Template name | |
| subject | Yes | Subject with declared {{variables}} | |
| variables | No | ||
| message_type | Yes | ||
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only reveals that the operation imports sanitized HTML and creates a draft. It does not state whether existing drafts are overwritten, whether invalid HTML is rejected or silently stripped, what the returned object looks like, or any permission/side-effect details.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words, and the key qualifiers 'safe' and 'as a draft' are immediately visible. Every word earns its place.
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?
Despite having 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description only states the high-level action. It omits meaningful context about what happens after import, what the draft state implies, how sanitization behaves, or how this tool relates to the many sibling template operations.
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 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The phrase 'safe HTML subset' adds useful semantic context to the html parameter, but the description does not clarify variables, message_type, or the required organization_id context beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Import') with a clear resource ('a safe HTML subset') and outcome ('as a draft'), making the core operation understandable. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling template tools like template_create or template_update, so an agent cannot tell when to choose this over those alternatives.
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 only implies via 'as a draft' that this creates a draft rather than a published template, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus template_create, template_export, or template_publish. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most resource CRUD sets are distinct, but the server duplicates entire CRM activity/task tool groups under crm_* and platform_crm_* with identical descriptions, so an agent cannot tell which set to call. Additional overlap exists around identity/context (me, context, platform_context, organizations) and exports (contacts_export vs data_export_create).
Names generally follow commsharbor_<resource>_<action>, but list endpoints are split between plural nouns (audiences, webhooks) and *_list suffixes (crm_activities_list), and some tools use bare nouns or verbs (health, me, context, logout). The mixed conventions are readable but not fully predictable.
141 tools is far beyond a coherent surface for an agent to select from. Even with a broad CRM/email platform scope, the set should be consolidated, namespaced more aggressively, or split into multiple focused servers.
Coverage is broad: campaigns, templates, audiences, CRM objects, imports/exports, auth, billing, domains, webhooks, and suppressions all have lifecycle tools. Gaps like suppression deletion, webhook update, and a non-platform leads group are minor relative to the overall surface, though the duplicate platform sets muddy completeness.