list_templatesList free and Marketplace legal templates from Docracy (NDAs, contractor agreements, offer letters, etc.). Optional text filter. Returns slugs and prepare URLs — does not create or send documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional filter (e.g. nda, freelancer, offer letter). Omit to list popular templates. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is read-only ('does not create or send documents') and states what it returns (slugs and prepare URLs). This is strong for a simple list operation, though it does not cover things like pagination, rate limits, or whether Marketplace items require pricing information.
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?
The description is three compact sentences that front-load the main action and resource, then add the filter, return value, and a key behavioral boundary. Every word earns its place; no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it names the document types, the optional filter, the return artifacts, and the non-destructive nature. There is no missing requirement that would prevent an agent from selecting or invoking this tool correctly.
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 the schema already explains the 'query' parameter, examples, and omission behavior. The tool description adds only the redundant phrase 'Optional text filter' and adds no new semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema. A baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('free and Marketplace legal templates from Docracy'), backed by concrete examples (NDAs, contractor agreements, offer letters). It distinguishes itself from drafting or preparing documents by stating 'does not create or send documents', which separates it from sibling tools like draft_from_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 clearly implies when to use it: when a user wants to browse or filter available Docracy templates. The optional filter and 'Omit to list popular templates' guidance (from the schema) is reinforced by the phrase 'Optional text filter', and the explicit 'does not create or send documents' serves as a when-not-to-use signal, even though sibling alternatives are not named.
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.