list_contract_templatesLists the five contract types LexPact can generate, including required and optional fields and party role labels, so you can confirm requirements before generating.
List the 5 contract types LexPact can generate, their required/optional fields, and party role labels. Call this first if you don't already know the field requirements for a contract_type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned content shape (contract types, field requirements, role labels) in place of a missing output schema. The word "List" implies a non-mutating enumeration, but read-only safety, determinism, and whether the result is static or configurable are not stated.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler: the first states what is returned, the second states when to call it. The ordering is front-loaded with the payload description and ends on the actionable call-first rule.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the three things the response contains, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether calling this resolves its unknown field requirements. For a zero-parameter discovery tool, nothing material is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline case where no parameter explanation is required. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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?
"List the 5 contract types LexPact can generate" gives a specific verb and resource, and it goes further by naming what each entry contains (required/optional fields, party role labels). This is unambiguously distinct from the siblings generate_contract and get_contract, which act on contracts rather than enumerating templates.
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 clause "Call this first if you don't already know the field requirements for a contract_type" gives explicit sequencing and a clear triggering condition, which is the main routing decision an agent faces here. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.