Skip to main content
Glama

mdmagic-mcp-server

by io.github.MDMagic-MCP

list_all_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all 15 built-in MDMagic templates plus any custom templates the user has uploaded.

CALL THIS PROACTIVELY when:

  • The user mentions a template by name (verify it exists before convert_document)

  • The user asks 'what templates are available' or similar

  • A previous convert_document call returned 'template not found'

  • The user describes the look they want without naming a template (so you can suggest a real one)

Returns: name, description, type (built-in vs custom), and category. Categories are: Business (5 templates), Creative (6), Professional (2), Technical (2). Use the optional category filter to narrow recommendations (e.g. 'for legal documents' → category: 'Professional').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoOptional filter — return only built-in templates in this category. Custom templates are always included regardless. Categories: Business (executive/financial), Creative (designer/artistic/novelty), Professional (legal), Technical (code/data documentation).
includeDetailsNoInclude template details like available page sizes and orientations (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "builtinCount": {
-      "description": "Number of built-in templates returned",
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "customCount": {
-      "description": "Number of custom templates returned",
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "templates": {
-      "description": "All matching templates",
-      "items": {
-        "properties": {
-          "category": {
-            "description": "Category label (built-in templates only)",
-            "type": [
-              "string",
-              "null"
-            ]
-          },
-          "description": {
-            "description": "Short description of the template's intended use",
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "id": {
-            "description": "Template ID — pass this as templateName to convert_document",
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "name": {
-            "description": "Human-readable template name",
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "type": {
-            "description": "Source of the template",
-            "enum": [
-              "built-in",
-              "custom"
-            ],
-            "type": "string"
-          }
-        },
-        "required": [
-          "id",
-          "name",
-          "type"
-        ],
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "templates"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by detailing the return fields (name, description, type, category), category counts (Business 5, Creative 6, Professional 2, Technical 2), and the fact that custom templates are always included regardless of filtering. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured: main purpose first, followed by a bulleted list of proactive call scenarios, then a return summary and category counts. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is scannable for an AI agent. No redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what it returns, lists the categories, and provides usage context. It does not explain the relationship to sibling tools like list_builtin_templates or get_template_details, but that is not essential for correct invocation of this tool. A small gap is the lack of mention of pagination or ordering, but that is likely unnecessary for a static set of ~15+ templates.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the category enum and its meanings, plus the 'custom templates always included' behavior. The description adds minimal extra parameter insight, only suggesting how to use the filter ('for legal documents → category: Professional'), which is helpful but not necessary. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List all 15 built-in MDMagic templates plus any custom templates the user has uploaded.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools list_builtin_templates and list_custom_templates by combining both. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides an explicit proactive call list with four concrete scenarios, such as 'verify it exists before convert_document' and 'a previous convert_document call returned template not found'. This is strong usage guidance. However, it does not mention when to use the sibling tools list_builtin_templates or list_custom_templates instead, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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

All mdmagic-mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: credit balance vs cost estimation, template listing scoped to all/built-in/custom, and conversion vs validation. The three list tools are explicitly named by scope, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_, convert_, estimate_, get_, list_, recommend_, show_, validate_), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a document conversion service. Each tool addresses a necessary step in the workflow (template selection, validation, cost estimation, conversion, credit monitoring) without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle (pre-flight validation, cost estimation, conversion, balance checking, template discovery) is fully covered. Minor gaps exist—no template upload or settings update—but these are likely handled outside the MCP server, so the surface is complete for its intended agent workflows.

Resources