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 provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata and a prepare URL, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm whether any mutation occurs (unlikely) or whether authentication/authorization is required. It also does not state that the prepare URL is generated (possibly a side effect) or its validity duration, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 a single efficient sentence that covers what the tool fetches, the input parameter, and the extra return value (prepare URL). It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple: one input parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately covers the input and the shape of the output (metadata + prepare URL) but does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure) or error cases (e.g., what happens if the slug is invalid). For a simple fetch operation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.
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 schema description for the slug parameter is already very helpful: it provides an example and guides the agent to use slugs from list_templates. The tool description adds the context that the slug identifies a specific template for metadata retrieval, but that is largely redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not add significant new semantic value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states a specific action: fetch metadata for one Docracy template by slug, listing the metadata fields (title, description, key clauses/drafting hints) and the prepare URL. It is distinct from siblings like list_templates (which lists templates) and draft_from_template (which likely creates a draft), so an agent can tell them apart.
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 implies usage by specifying a single slug as the input and referencing the sibling list_templates as a source for slugs ('a Marketplace slug from list_templates'). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool versus list_templates or draft_from_template, but the contextual detail—metadata retrieval vs listing vs drafting—provides sufficient implied context.
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.
The tools are largely distinct: list_templates and get_template cover browsing/fetching templates, draft_from_template starts a drafting workflow, and check_status looks up signing status. There is slight overlap between get_template and draft_from_template since both return prepare URLs and drafting hints, but their core purposes remain separable.
All tool names follow a clear snake_case verb-object pattern: check_status, draft_from_template, get_template, and list_templates. The singular/plural template names are natural, and there are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a template drafting and status assistant. Each tool serves a distinct user need without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the main template browsing, arbitrary drafting, and status-checking workflow, and explicitly signals when human action is required. The only notable gap is the lack of an API-driven send-for-signature action, but the descriptions deliberately leave that to the human user.