Fetch a paginated list of available templates from EternalEngine's public API. Use limit and offset to control result size and page through the collection.
List templates (rate limit: 100 requests per 1m) Read-only (GET /postframe/templates).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it explicitly states the call is read-only, reveals the HTTP method, and includes a concrete rate limit of 100 requests per 1m. It does not describe pagination behavior or response shape, but the safety and throttling traits are clearly disclosed and not contradicted by any annotation.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the endpoint, rate limit, and read-only safety hint into the remainder. Every word adds value and there is no filler.
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?
For a simple read-only list call with only two optional parameters, the description is nearly complete: it provides the endpoint, method, read-only semantics, and rate limit, and calling with no parameters is safe. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain pagination parameter semantics or point to getTemplatesById for single-template retrieval.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention limit or offset at all. While the parameter names are conventional and hint at pagination, the tool description adds no explicit meaning about their behavior, bounds, or defaults beyond what the bare schema already offers.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('List templates') plus the exact endpoint 'GET /postframe/templates', so an agent knows the tool lists multiple templates. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like getTemplatesById, but the plural 'templates' and the list-oriented endpoint make the scope reasonably clear.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention getTemplatesById for retrieving a single template, nor any other selection criteria such as filtering, sorting, or preferred use cases. The rate limit and read-only annotation are operational constraints, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.