Retrieve email templates, filter by draft or published status, and page through results using limit and cursor.
List email templates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (1–100) | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor for the next page | |
| status | No |
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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication of whether results are paginated, filtered, ordered, or permission-gated. The only signal is the verb 'List', which the name already conveys.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise: for a three-parameter, paginated, filterable endpoint, one sentence leaves material information unstated.
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?
With a cursor param, a status filter enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain pagination and filtering behavior. It covers none of this, so an agent cannot call the tool confidently beyond passing bare parameters.
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 coverage is only 67% – limit and cursor are documented in the schema, but status (an enum) has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about filtering by draft/published or paging semantics, so it fails to compensate for the gap.
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 and resource ('List email templates'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling get_template (single-template retrieval) or create_template, leaving the reader to infer the difference from plurality alone.
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 on when to use this versus get_template or how to page through results, despite a cursor parameter implying multiple pages. The agent must infer all usage context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.