Skip to main content
Glama

list_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse available document designs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
queryNo
categoryNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination, default sorting, or how 'available' is determined.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified. It earns its place as a basic purpose statement but could add useful detail without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the returned list contains or how to narrow results, leaving the agent with too little context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention tags, query, or category parameters. The agent receives no help understanding how these optional filters affect the listing.

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?

The description 'Browse available document designs' clearly indicates a listing operation with a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_template and preview_template by its verb and object, though 'browse' is slightly generic.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention filtering, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource (document vs deck) and lifecycle stage (create, preview, status, download). generate_deck and get_research_deck both produce decks and could be confused, and preview_template overlaps with the preview step inside fill_template, but descriptions mostly clarify intent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, save_, download_). The verbs are simple and each noun clearly identifies the target resource, making the set predictable.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for a document and deck generation server. Each tool covers a distinct step in the workflow without excessive fragmentation.

Completeness4/5

The document lifecycle (template -> fill -> preview -> status -> download) and deck workflow (templates -> generate/research -> save) are well covered. Minor gaps include no template update/delete and no way to list or retrieve saved decks, but agents can complete core tasks.