list_slideshow_templatesList available slideshow template sets and their IDs with intended uses to select the correct template when creating a slideshow.
The template sets create_slideshow can build from, with their ids and what each one is for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, and the description adds that the result includes ids and intended purpose for each template. It stops short of broader behavioral details like ordering or empty-result handling, which is acceptable given the annotations.
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?
One sentence, no filler, and it front-loads the resource and its connection to create_slideshow. Every clause contributes to identifying the tool and its output.
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 no-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (ids and purpose). It could be slightly more explicit about completeness or ordering, but no critical agent decision is left unaddressed.
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?
There are zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Baseline 4 applies because the empty schema leaves nothing for the description to compensate for.
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 the specific resource (template sets) and its relationship to create_slideshow, plus what is returned (ids and purpose). An agent can distinguish it from create_slideshow and other slideshow tools.
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 implies use before create_slideshow by saying these are templates create_slideshow can build from, but it does not explicitly state when to call this list tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.