Uwear

List Templates

list_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List canonical company templates, optionally filtered by kind, scope, command use case, or public t-xxxx share code. Templates persist canonical commands but do not execute generations. System templates named Demo — … are worked examples of the canonical command language; read one with get_template before authoring a first brief or workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number for pagination
`use_case`	No	Filter by a use_case present in any stored command
`share_code`	No	Return the template assigned this public t-xxxx share code
`catalog_scope`	No	Filter by library or owner_only. Owner-only templates are hidden unless explicitly requested.
`template_kind`	No	Filter by generation_preset or batch_workflow
`items_per_page`	No	Number of templates per page

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that templates do not execute generations and that demo templates are worked examples. This adds valuable context about system template behavior and the recommended reading workflow.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then provide valuable context about template semantics. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (no execution, demo templates). It doesn't mention pagination or return format, but the parameter descriptions already cover pagination, and the tool's purpose is clear enough for correct use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description's mention of filters by kind, scope, use case, and share code adds no new parameter-level meaning. It does summarize the available dimensions, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the detail.

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 clearly states the tool lists canonical company templates with optional filters, distinguishing it from siblings like get_template (retrieving one) and save/delete_template. It also specifies what templates are (canonical commands) and the demo naming convention.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly recommends using get_template to read a demo template before authoring, providing a clear alternative and when-to-use context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives like save_template.

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

All Uwear tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and have detailed descriptions, but several closely related families exist: create_credit_checkout_session vs mcp_create_credit_checkout_session, the propose_brief/confirm_brief/update_brief lifecycle, and the many avatar/upload entry points. An agent must read long caveats carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tool names follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, propose_*). The mcp_* prefix group and varied creation verbs (create/upload/save/add/generate) are minor deviations, though mcp_create_credit_checkout_session duplicating create_credit_checkout_session adds some confusion.

Tool Count1/5

With 67 tools, this is an extreme mismatch by the rubric's own 50+ threshold, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. Many tools are narrow lifecycle steps such as two-phase local uploads, app-only montage internals, and multiple ArtDirection authoring variants, making the agent-facing surface very heavy.

Completeness3/5

The core generation, brief, montage, and QA workflows are covered thoroughly with polling and result retrieval. However, notable lifecycle gaps exist: outfits, locations, avatars, and tags mostly have create/list/get but no update or delete, and delete_template is the only delete tool in the entire set.

Resources

Need Help?