agentView

Search Store Templates

search_store_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches the agentView template store for ready-made display designs ('Zahnarzt-Wartezimmer', 'Bistro', 'reception', ...). Use when the user wants a polished pre-built design instead of generated HTML; results render as a gallery widget. Filter by category, suite and language; paginate with limit/offset. Follow up with get_store_template_details. No authentication required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of templates to return. Defaults to 10.
`query`	No	Free-text search over template title, description and tags. Examples: 'Zahnarzt', 'italienisches Bistro', 'conference room'.
`suite`	No	Optional design-family suite slug (e.g. 'bistro-warm', 'sushi-minimal').
`offset`	No	Offset into the filtered result set for pagination. Defaults to 0.
`category`	No	Optional category slug to restrict the search (English kebab-case, e.g. 'gastronomie', 'waiting-room').
`language`	No	Preferred content language. Defaults to 'en'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`total`	No
`offset`	No
`language`	No
`templates`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by noting 'No authentication required' and 'results render as a gallery widget', which are behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence serves a clear function: stating the action and examples (first sentence), usage context (second sentence), and filtering options with follow-up (third sentence). No redundant or unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, all schemas are complete, and there is an output schema (mentioned as gallery widget). The description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use this tool and how to construct the search, including the follow-up step. The absence of return value details is compensated by the output schema reference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds practical examples for 'query' (e.g., 'Zahnarzt', 'italienisches Bistro') and clarifies 'suite' and 'category' as optional filters, enhancing the semantic understanding of how to use the parameters.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('agentView template store for ready-made display designs'), with concrete examples like 'Zahnarzt-Wartezimmer'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings such as list_store_categories and get_store_template_details by noting the follow-up action and the gallery widget rendering.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the user wants a polished pre-built design instead of generated HTML'. It also explains how to filter and paginate, and recommends following up with get_store_template_details. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear enough.

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

All agentView tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource-action pairs (displays, organizations, assets, data slots, store templates, auth). A few clusters like the get_store_template_* family and the auth/session tools could still confuse an agent, but their descriptions are explicit enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is consistent verb_noun snake_case (list_*, get_*, create_*, delete_*, send_*, set_*, manage_*). Deviations like fetch, search, authenticate, logout, and pair_by_code are understandable but break the otherwise uniform naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 57 tools this server far exceeds the 50+ threshold, creating an extreme tool-set size for an MCP server. Even though the underlying platform is feature-rich, the sheer number of tools heavily taxes context and selection.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers display, organization, asset, data slot, store template, auth, API key, and licensing lifecycles in impressive depth. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operation for display categories and no reboot/power control for displays.

Resources

Need Help?