list_templatesList ParserBee Parser Templates with IDs, names, descriptions, and fields, then use a template ID to extract structured data from documents.
List the Parser Templates in the ParserBee account (ID, name, description and fields). Use an ID with extract_document.
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's main added value is the scope ('in the ParserBee account') and the returned fields. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether large accounts truncate results.
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 resource and scope come first, and the extract_document handoff 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the fields returned (ID, name, description, fields), which is what an agent needs to chain into extract_document. It stops short of noting result ordering or volume limits, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is nearly complete.
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, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly focuses on output fields instead of inventing input semantics.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List the Parser Templates') and even enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, description, fields), which distinguishes it from sibling get_template (single-template retrieval) without needing to name it.
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?
Adds downstream routing guidance ('Use an ID with extract_document'), telling the agent what to do with the result. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_template or list_recent_extractions, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.