Get one public project template by numeric id, including its ordered task list (title, description, status/priority defaults, offset and duration in days).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the template is public (accessibility scope), that the task list is ordered (ordering guarantee), and specifies the task fields returned. It does not mention error behavior or template-level fields, but for a simple single-get operation this is reasonably transparent.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and identifier before detailing the included task list fields. There is no filler, and every phrase adds information relevant to invoking the tool correctly.
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?
Given one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core return structure (ordered task list fields) and access scope ('public'). It does not enumerate template-level fields or error semantics, but an agent has enough information to select and call the tool correctly.
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?
The schema already covers the only parameter with a clear description ('Template id.'), integer type, and exclusiveMinimum. The description's 'numeric id' simply restates the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra parameter meaning.
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 states a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('public project template'), an identifier type ('numeric id'), and the key payload ('ordered task list' with fields). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings: list_templates enumerates templates, and get_sop targets a different resource type, so an agent can select this tool without ambiguity.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a numeric template id and need the full template with its task list. The context is clear, though it does not explicitly name list_templates as the alternative for enumerating templates or state when not to use this tool. Still, the resource-type distinction from sibling tools is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.