get_templateOne public template by slug or id, with its generation payload (model, prompt, settings). Run it with the product server's generate tools, or open its url in Splice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Template slug (or id) from list_templates. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / slug / maxLengthRemoved value: -100Input schema / properties / slug / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the response payload (model, prompt, settings) and its downstream use. Minor gap: no mention of not-found/error behavior or what 'public' excludes.
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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the payload, then the follow-on actions. No filler.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned payload and a follow-on action, which is enough for a trivial one-param lookup. Only minor omissions (failure modes, whether the template is copied or referenced) keep it off a 5.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, including that an id may be used. The description's 'by slug or id' restates the schema rather than adding format or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource (fetch one public template) and scopes it to a single item by slug or id, which implicitly separates it from list_templates. It also names the returned payload contents (model, prompt, settings), so the agent knows what it gets.
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?
Gives concrete next-step context: use it to feed the product server's generate tools or open the url in Splice. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_templates (bulk listing) or get_doc, but the context for when this is the right call is clear.
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.