List Kanbai's public project templates (name, description, task count). Templates are the reusable task graphs new projects are instantiated from — public reference content, not a customer's live project data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly signals that this is a read-only listing operation on public, non-sensitive content, which is meaningful safety context. It does not mention output format, pagination, ordering, or request-specific constraints, though those gaps are modest for a zero-parameter list tool.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and output fields, while the second sentence adds relevant clarifying context without repetition or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a zero-parameter, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, the resource being listed, the fields returned, and the public/non-sensitive nature of the data. It could explicitly state the output shape (e.g., an array of template objects), but nothing critical is missing for safe invocation.
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 tool accepts zero parameters and the empty input schema already fully documents that fact. The description therefore does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 begins with an explicit action verb and resource: 'List Kanbai's public project templates' and even enumerates the returned fields (name, description, task count). It further distinguishes templates from live customer data and from SOP-related siblings, making the tool's scope immediately clear.
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 gives helpful context, noting that templates are reusable public task graphs used to instantiate projects, which implies this tool is for browsing available templates. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of kanbai_get_template or kanbai_list_sops, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.