List public RemixMeme templates. Optional query, category, limit (max 100), and offset. Does not return generation prompts.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful negative information ("Does not return generation prompts") and a hard cap on limit, but says nothing about authentication, pagination behavior beyond the offset field, or the shape of the results. It is better than nothing but does not fully cover a read tool with zero annotation support.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by parameters and a scope caveat; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse for the parameter burden, but no sentence wastes space.
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 four-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filters, and the limit ceiling, which is roughly adequate. The missing pieces are the return shape and the allowed category values, both of which an agent would need to call it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all four parameters and adds a real constraint (limit max 100), but leaves query matching semantics and valid category values unexplained, so an agent still cannot construct a precise filtered call from the description alone.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List public RemixMeme templates") and adds a scope qualifier ("public") that helps separate it from get_template, which presumably fetches a single template. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
It states that the filters are optional but never says when to reach for this tool versus get_template or list_generations. An agent must infer that this is the browse-all path from the verb alone; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.