Returns pre-built monitor templates for common use cases
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter templates by category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only, non-mutating call, but the description says nothing about whether templates are global or account-scoped, whether results are paginated, or what a template object contains.
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 with no redundant wording. It is efficient but so terse that there is no room for the routing or return-shape context the agent would benefit from.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional enum parameter, no output schema), so the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It is still incomplete about the relationship to create_from_template and about what the returned templates can be used for.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional category parameter is documented with an enum in the schema, so the schema does the work. The description adds no filtering semantics or default behavior (e.g., all categories when omitted), which matches the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.
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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Returns pre-built monitor templates' — plus the qualifier 'for common use cases', so an agent knows this is a read/list operation over templates. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create_from_template, which is the tool an agent would naturally reach for next.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus create_from_template or create_monitor, and no mention that the returned templates are meant to be fed into create_from_template. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Returns' and the word 'templates'.
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.