Cloudlabels

List sheet templates

list_sheet_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every label sheet this organization can use: Avery, Herma, Online Labels, round, and the other A4 and US Letter sheets in the Design Center gallery, plus this organization's saved sheets. Thermal rolls are not included. Each row has id, name, brand, code, source (system or organization), page_size (A4 or Letter), page size in millimetres, and for Letter also page_width_in and page_height_in (8.5 by 11). It also has columns, rows, label size, margins, horizontal and vertical gap, pitch (label size plus that gap), corner radius, and labels per sheet. Sizes are millimetres unless the field name ends in _in. Ask which id to pass as sheet_template_id on create_label_design. Printing then uses that sheet's paper size. Does not return another organization's sheets.

Tool call template

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_sheet_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds scope guarantees beyond them, namely that thermal rolls are excluded and another organization's sheets are never returned. It does not discuss ordering, pagination, or result size, but for a fully enumerated catalog list those are minor.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the field-by-field run-down is dense but purposeful given there is no output schema. A little verbosity creeps in around unit conventions and the Letter dimension example (8.5 by 11), which could be trimmed without loss.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: identity fields, source, page size, unit conventions, geometry fields, and labels per sheet, plus the downstream consumer (create_label_design) and the printing implication. An agent would not need a follow-up call to know what comes back.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly introduces no parameter semantics and instead spends its words on the return shape, which is the right allocation here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List every label sheet this organization can use') and immediately bounds scope by naming brands and the Design Center gallery plus org-saved sheets. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings like list_sheets, list_catalog_sheets, or list_label_templates, so an agent must infer which list tool to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a forward pointer ('Ask which id to pass as sheet_template_id on create_label_design'), which is genuinely useful chaining guidance, and states two exclusions (thermal rolls, other organizations' sheets). However, it never says when to use this versus list_sheets or list_catalog_sheets, so the usage decision stays implicit.

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

All Cloudlabels tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?