list_templatesList templates
List saved SMS/MMS/voice templates and their {{placeholders}}. Pass an id to send_sms as template_id with params.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Strona rekordów | |
| next_cursor | No | Kursor kolejnej strony |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Strona rekordów",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "description": "Kursor kolejnej strony",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it reveals that templates contain placeholders, which is not in the schema or annotations, and clarifies how the returned id is consumed by another tool. This adds value 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds a precise downstream usage note. No wasted words; it earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema exists), the description is complete: it identifies the resource types, notes placeholders, and explains how to use the results. An agent has everything needed to invoke and apply the 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it instead focuses on output usage, which 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'saved SMS/MMS/voice templates', and further specifies that it includes their placeholders. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_template (creation) and other list_* tools. It is not a tautology.
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 gives clear context on how the output is used ('Pass an id to send_sms as template_id with params'), which is practical guidance for an agent. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but there is no direct sibling for listing templates, and the purpose is self-evident. Implied usage is sufficient.
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.