template_getRetrieve a single reply template by ID, returning its plain text and HTML content. Use organization and template IDs to fetch the exact template.
Get one reply template by id, with its plain text and HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | Yes | The template id (see template_list). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result includes both plain text and HTML, which the annotations don't convey.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action, the resource, and the payload, with zero 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-by-id tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate; it even notes the return payload. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned formats.
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 100% and both parameters are documented with pointers to sibling list tools, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by id' and adds nothing 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (reply template), scoped to a single item by id, and adds what fields it returns (plain text and HTML). It clearly differs from template_list, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives; the routing hints (see template_list, organization_list) live only in the schema parameter descriptions, not the tool description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.