get_templateGet a single template by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template ID (from list_templates) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The template — id, name, description, type, its pages, and the datasources it expects. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The template — id, name, description, type, its pages, and the datasources it expects.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic function. It does not mention return format, potential errors, permissions, or any edge-case behavior. It only restates what the name already implies.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does without filler. It is appropriately minimal for a simple get-by-ID operation.
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?
This is a very simple tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations. The description is sufficient for an agent to know its purpose and call it correctly. No critical information is missing; the only addition might be a note on error handling, but that is not necessary given the simplicity and available schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'id' is documented with 'Template ID (from list_templates)'. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage. The description 'by ID' is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema carries the full semantic load.
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 'Get a single template by ID' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (template), and the method (by ID). It unambiguously distinguishes this from list_templates, create_template, update_template, and archive_template, and from other get_* tools for different resources. No 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 schema description 'Template ID (from list_templates)' implies a workflow: first list templates to obtain an ID, then call this. However, the description itself does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is only implicit via the parameter hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.