CueFrame

Get Template

get_template

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a saved organization template by id or a known public catalog template by slug. The answer is a summary: the media and value parameters with their kinds and options, presets with their values and brand kit, the brand kit, rubric, components (id, version, asset slots) and an outline of the tracks and clips; never component sources (read one with get_component_source, or pass full: true for the whole document). Use the exact reference with start_template or apply_template. Do not invent a slug from a component-library card.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`full`	No	Return the whole template document, component sources included, instead of the summary.
`template`	Yes	template (path).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`name`	No
`slug`	No
`version`	No
`document`	No	A CueFrame template document (kernel TemplateDocument): v: 1, slug, name, composition with {{name}} references, parameters, components by value, an optional brandKit, presets, rubric, gallery and provenance.
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`fromCatalog`	No
`documentSha256`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / $defs
```
Added value: +{
+  "__schema0": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / full / $ref
```
Added value: +"#/$defs/__schema0"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / full / type
```
Removed value: -"boolean"
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / full

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return the whole template document, component sources included, instead of the summary.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and an output schema exists, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the summary-vs-full distinction and the hard exclusion ('never component sources'), which is the main gotcha an agent would hit.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then alternatives and a caveat — a sensible order. It is a single dense paragraph with a few repeated ideas (summary vs full appears twice), so it is not maximally tight, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers purpose, both retrieval modes, return contents, the one exclusion, and the follow-up tools to call. With an output schema handling return structure and annotations handling safety, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the 'template' argument accepts an id or a public catalog slug, and the reference must be exact. That is meaningfully more than the terse schema text 'template (path)'.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and two retrieval modes (org template by id, public catalog template by slug), which immediately separates it from list_templates and get_component_source. The rest of the sentence enumerates what the read returns, so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes to alternatives: get_component_source for a single source, full: true for the whole document, and start_template/apply_template for actually using the template. It also gives a negative rule ('Do not invent a slug from a component-library card') that prevents a foreseeable failure mode.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CueFrame tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.