Compile and render a safe template preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Template name | |
| blocks | Yes | ||
| values | No | ||
| subject | Yes | Subject with declared {{variables}} | |
| variables | Yes | ||
| message_type | No | ||
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden, and 'compile and render a safe template preview' gives only minimal process information. It does not explain whether the operation persists anything, sends anything, is non-destructive, or what the preview output looks like; 'safe' is ambiguous.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place, though the extreme terseness leaves important functional details uncovered.
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?
This tool has seven parameters, nested objects, no annotation coverage, and no output schema, yet the description is only eight words. It lacks essential context about required inputs, the meaning of blocks/values, safety guarantees, and what response is returned, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.
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 low (43%), so the description should compensate by explaining key parameters such as blocks, values, and message_type. It does not: no parameter is mentioned, and the only implicit link is that 'compile and render' suggests variables and blocks are inputs, but that is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 identifies specific actions ('compile', 'render') and a clear resource ('a safe template preview'), which distinguishes it from sibling template tools like get, update, publish, and export. The word 'safe' is a useful qualifier but is vague, so it stops short of a fully explicit differentiation.
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 choose this preview tool over alternatives such as template_get, template_export, or template_publish. The 'preview' wording implies pre-publication checking, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.
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.