Coverlttr

List Templates

list_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all LaTeX cover letter templates (GET /api/template). Optionally pass coverLetterId to include applied status for that letter. Each template includes a variables array (name, label, type, required, example, …) needed for apply_template. Prefer pointing the user to the cover letter page on the website for browsing and picking templates visually.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coverLetterId`	No	Optional. Cover letter `id` UUID from create_cover_letter or list_user_cover_letters, or that letter's viewUrl. Omit to list templates without applied status. Do not pass a jobListingId.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`viewUrl`	No
`templates`	Yes
`coverLetterId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the shape of the response (a variables array with name, label, type, required, example) and that applied status is only populated when coverLetterId is supplied.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, then the optional parameter effect, then the user-facing recommendation. No filler, though the website-preference sentence sits slightly awkwardly after the technical detail.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the parameter's effect, the response structure relevant to the apply_template workflow, and a user-guidance preference. Nothing needed to invoke it 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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the effect of coverLetterId — it toggles inclusion of applied status — which is behavioral meaning the schema only partially conveys. The warning about not passing a jobListingId lives in the schema rather than the description, which is fine at this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all LaTeX cover letter templates') plus the underlying endpoint (GET /api/template), and ties the output to its downstream consumer apply_template. An agent can distinguish this from apply_template or list_user_files without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the conditional case for coverLetterId (include applied status for a specific letter) and adds a clear steer: prefer sending the user to the website for visual browsing. It lacks an explicit statement of when this tool is preferable to website browsing beyond that single preference, but the guidance is actionable.

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

All Coverlttr 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.

Resources

Need Help?