list_templatesList all available .gitignore template names from github/gitignore.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templates | Yes | List of available .gitignore template names |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "templates": {
+ "description": "List of available .gitignore template names",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "templates"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the source ('from github/gitignore'), which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. This is sufficient for a simple read-only listing.
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 sentence front-loaded with the action verb. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information.
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 with no parameters and an output schema is present. The description fully explains what the tool does (list names from a specific source), leaving no ambiguity for the agent.
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 and schema description coverage is 100% (no params to document). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter information.
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 'List all available .gitignore template names from github/gitignore' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (template names from github/gitignore). It clearly defines scope and distinguishes from sibling 'get_template' which retrieves a specific 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?
While no explicit when/when-not guidance is given, the description implies this is the tool to explore available templates before using 'get_template'. The context of listing all templates from a known source (github/gitignore) makes usage clear, though explicit alternatives would earn a 5.
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.
ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical right now, making them near-duplicates. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also heavily overlap, and deep_research vs ask_pipeworx requires careful reading to know which to pick.
Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_templates, create_*, validate_claim). However, a few bare verbs break the pattern: compose, forget, recall, and remember.
34 tools is already heavy, but the server is named 'Gitignore' and only 3 of 34 tools relate to .gitignore templates. The other 31 tools form a completely unrelated data platform, making the count an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.
As a data platform, the surface is broad but has notable gaps: citations return pipeworx:// URIs yet no fetch/read-by-URI tool exists, and subscriptions support subscribe/unsubscribe/list but not update. For the gitignore name, only basic template list/get/compose is present, with the rest irrelevant to the stated purpose.