Nosana MCP

List templates

list_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover deployable Nosana templates for AI workloads like MiniMax H3, Qwen, Gemma, ComfyUI, Jupyter, and Whisper. Filter results by id, name, or category to find the right ready-to-run template.

Instructions

Ready-to-run Nosana templates (MiniMax H3 video, Qwen and Gemma models via Ollama, ComfyUI, Jupyter, VS Code, Whisper, ...). Templates with variants need a variant id when deploying.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search`	No	Filter by id, name or category, e.g. "minimax" or "LLM".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent nature of the tool. The description adds useful domain context—that some templates require a variant id when deploying—but does not elaborate on tool behavior such as response shape, pagination, or filtering effects. This is acceptable given the rich annotations, but not exceptional.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. Examples are front-loaded for quick comprehension, and the variant warning earns its place as a deployment-relevant caveat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could explicitly say that the tool returns the full list of available templates and how search narrows results, but the intent is clear enough from the name, title, and examples.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single optional search parameter is already fully documented in the input schema with a clear example. The description adds no extra meaning about the search parameter, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource—ready-to-run Nosana templates—and gives concrete examples of what the user will see. It stops short of using an explicit verb like 'list' and does not distinguish itself from get_template, so it misses the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for discovering available deployable templates, especially with the variant warning at the end, but it does not explicitly say when to choose list_templates over get_template or another sibling. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server