get_templateFetch metadata for one Docracy template by slug (title, description, key clauses / drafting hints when available) plus the prepare URL to open it for e-signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Template slug, e.g. mutual-nda or a Marketplace slug from list_templates. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only 'fetch' operation and details what is returned, including conditional content ('when available') and a prepare URL. It does not cover error cases, but for a low-complexity lookup this is not a critical shortfall.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then packs the expected outputs cleanly. No wasted words or redundant content.
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?
Despite a small number of parameters and no output schema, the description successfully conveys the tool's scope and return payload. It could additionally reference sibling alternatives, but the overall completeness is strong for a simple metadata fetch.
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?
The input schema already documents the slug parameter fully with description and example, at 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'by slug' restates rather than adds meaning, so the rubric baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 starts with an explicit verb 'Fetch' and a specific resource ('metadata for one Docracy template by slug'), and lists exactly the output fields (title, description, key clauses/drafting hints, prepare URL). This clearly separates it from sibling tools list_templates (enumeration) and draft_from_template (creating a draft).
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 makes clear this tool is for retrieving a single template's metadata when a slug is known, and the schema's slug example suggests using list_templates as a source for slugs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, leaving a small inferential gap.
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.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly singular.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (check_status), and with only one tool, consistency is trivially maintained.
A single tool for a service named Docracy is very thin. A signing service would typically require additional tools such as create, send, or cancel.
The server only supports checking the status of a signing chain, lacking essential operations like creating, managing, or canceling signing chains. This is severely incomplete for the domain.