list_templatesRetrieve organization templates with IDs, names, required roles, data fields, and readiness status to select the right one for e-signature.
Lists the organisation's templates: id, name, the roles to fill (e.g. "tenant", "landlord"), the data keys to fill, and whether the template is ready to send.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context about the payload, notably the 'ready to send' readiness flag and the roles/data keys, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or scoping of the result set.
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 naming the resource first and then the fields. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by listing id, name, roles, data keys, and readiness. It stops short of describing ordering or whether the list is paginated, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.
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-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description rightly spends its words on the return shape instead.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists the organisation's templates') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_documents or get_organisation, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough to avoid confusion.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before send_from_template, but the description never says when to call it or what alternative to use instead. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.