list_templatesList all available signing templates. Present results as a short scannable list of template names only — hide IDs and metadata from the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max templates to return (max 50, default 10) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful presentation guidance: results should be a short scannable list of template names only, hiding IDs and metadata. This is valuable beyond annotations. Minor inconsistency: 'all available' is somewhat at odds with the default limit of 10, but the schema covers that.
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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key presentation constraint are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 straightforward read-only list operation, the description, schema, and annotations cover the essential needs: what to list, how to present results, parameter constraints, and safety profile. The only minor gap is not mentioning pagination response behavior or ordering, but the schema documents the pagination inputs.
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%, so limit and offset are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, landing at the baseline score.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available signing templates'), which clearly distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools. The phrase 'all available' also sets it apart from get_template, which retrieves a single template.
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 description implies the tool is for listing templates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_template or list_documents. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.