Skip to main content
Glama

Uwear

by ai.uwear
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number for pagination
use_caseNoFilter by a use_case present in any stored command
share_codeNoReturn the template assigned this public t-xxxx share code
catalog_scopeNoFilter by library or owner_only. Owner-only templates are hidden unless explicitly requested.
template_kindNoFilter generation presets or read-only historical batch_workflow records
items_per_pageNoNumber of templates per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $defs / TemplateKind / description
      Added value: +"generation_preset is writable; batch_workflow is retained read-only history."
    • changedInput schema / properties / template_kind / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by generation_preset or batch_workflow"New value: +"Filter generation presets or read-only historical batch_workflow records"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / share_code
      Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Return the template assigned this public t-xxxx share code",
+  "pattern": "^t-[a-z0-9]{4}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: templates persist but never execute generations, and 'Demo — …' templates are worked examples of the canonical command language. Nothing contradicts the annotations, which support the read-only framing.

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 sentences with the purpose and filter axes front-loaded in the first, followed by a compact behavioral caveat and a concrete next-step pointer. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 six-optional-parameter list operation with full schema coverage and safety-carrying annotations, the description covers the object's nature, all filter dimensions, the non-execution behavior, and the natural follow-up via get_template. The only shortfall is the absence of return-shape guidance, which carries slightly more weight because no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail, including the owner-only visibility rule and the writable/read-only enum distinction. The description adds only a light summary of the filter axes (kind, scope, use case, share code) that maps to schema parameters without deepening their semantics — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'list canonical company templates' — and enumerates the filter dimensions (kind, scope, use case, share code). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing templates as persisted canonical commands rather than executable or writable records, and implicitly differentiates from get_template which reads a single template.

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 routes follow-up behavior ('read one with get_template before authoring a first brief or workflow') and clarifies that templates 'do not execute generations', steering an agent toward generation tools when execution is needed. It does not, however, enumerate exclusions against other browsing or search siblings such as search_uwear_library.

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

All Uwear toolsInspect
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.

Resources