List sandbox templates in your workspace, filter by tags to locate the matching environment for your tasks.
List templates for the workspace, optionally filtered by tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Only return templates that carry all of these tags. | |
| page_size | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to list from (defaults to the key's first workspace). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the tag-filtering semantics but does not disclose any pagination behavior or output details beyond what the schema provides.
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 concise sentence that states the primary action and the main optional modifier. Every word earns its place and the key filtering capability is front-loaded.
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 read-only list operation with no output schema and four optional parameters, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is page_size/page_token semantics, but the annotation set already establishes the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the missing information is minor.
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 50%: tags and workspace_id are documented in the schema, while page_size and page_token have no descriptions. The tool description adds 'optionally filtered by tags' which reinforces the tags meaning. However, page_size and page_token semantics remain undocumented, so the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 clearly states the verb (List), the resource (templates), and the scope (for the workspace, optionally filtered by tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like tenki_list_sandboxes or tenki_list_volumes by naming the resource explicitly.
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 when to use this tool: when you need to list templates, possibly filtered by tags. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like tenki_list_workspace_snapshots, and there is no guidance about pagination or the default workspace behavior, which the schema only partially hints at.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.