Get one public RemixMeme template by slug. Does not return generation prompts.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_template"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two useful behavioral facts: results are restricted to 'public' templates and generation prompts are excluded from the response. It says nothing about what happens with an unknown slug or whether anything besides prompts is returned, leaving notable gaps for a zero-annotation 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the one notable return exclusion. No wasted wording.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and one important return-value caveat. It would be complete with a note on failure behavior for invalid slugs or the kind of template data returned.
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 0% for the single slug parameter, so the description must compensate; it does add meaning by clarifying that slug identifies one template (implying a unique key) and that it is required. It still omits format details such as where a slug comes from or case sensitivity, keeping it below a 5.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one public RemixMeme template by slug'. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from list_templates, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'by slug' — an agent can infer this is the single-item lookup when a slug is known, versus list_templates for enumeration. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are stated.
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.