Retrieve a transactional email template by its ID or published alias to fetch its content for sending or reuse.
Get a template by id or alias.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Template id (tpl_…) | |
| alias | No | Published alias (alternative to id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read but does not state that it is read-only, whether id and alias are mutually exclusive or which wins if both are supplied, or what happens when the template is not found. These are meaningful gaps for a lookup tool.
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 short sentence with the key information front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the behavioral context it omits.
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?
A simple two-parameter read with no output schema, so minimal description is defensible, and the parameters are covered. However, missing error behavior and the id/alias interaction leaves an agent with avoidable ambiguity.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description's 'by id or alias' simply restates that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing beyond it.
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 (template) plus the lookup keys (id or alias), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_templates or publish_template, but the get/list contrast is inferable.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no alternatives named (e.g., 'use list_templates to enumerate templates'). The agent must infer that this fetches a single template.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.