list_templatesLists ready-made page templates assembled from WunderUI components, including dashboards, settings, AI inbox, and sign-in screens, so you can start from a structured layout instead of an empty file.
Full pages assembled only from WunderUI components — a dashboard, a settings page, an AI inbox and a sign-in screen. Start from one of these instead of an empty file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the content of what is returned (full-page templates built purely from WunderUI components), but never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free listing, whether the four named items are exhaustive or illustrative, or what shape the results take (names vs. source).
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 short sentences with no filler; the content description leads and the actionable advice follows. Every clause carries information.
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 zero-parameter list tool, the description covers what the items are but not the return shape or the follow-up step for actually retrieving a chosen template (presumably get_starter or get_block_source). With no output schema and no annotations, that retrieval path should have been stated.
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 and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
The description names the resource precisely: "Full pages assembled only from WunderUI components," and gives four concrete examples (dashboard, settings page, AI inbox, sign-in screen). It doesn't explicitly state the verb "list" or differentiate itself from siblings like list_components or get_starter, so an agent must infer enumeration from the tool name.
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?
"Start from one of these instead of an empty file" implies the when-to-use case (scaffolding a new page). However, it names no exclusions or alternatives, and never tells the agent how this relates to list_components or get_starter, so the agent must guess which list tool to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.